Click to View


Match Context and Document information
These search terms are highlighted: 1914 Watchtower

Depth:2 clicks away from Home
Size:1,711,787 bytes
Modified:2020-01-28 11:04:57
Title:Bulwarks of the Faith Foy E Wallace JR. Refuting Dogmas Catholicism and Protestant Denominationalism 1951AD
Meta data:-None-
Body:Bulwarks of the Faith

Bulwarks of the Faith Foy E Wallace JR. Refuting Dogmas Catholicism and Protestant Denominationalism 1951AD

Roman Catholic Faith Examined!

A Series of Addresses Delivered in the Music Hall, Houston, Texas, in January 1946, Refuting the Dogmas of Roman Catholicism and the Doctrines of Protestant Denominationalism



Copyrighted 1951 All Rights Reserved

Published By Foy E.Wallace Jr., Publications Oklahoma City

Printed In The United States Of America

Click to View We Speak truth in LOVE tell us if we have misrepresented Catholic Faith Click to View


Pages Author's Preface


Introduction, by Jack Meyer


Chapter One: Viewing The Walls-A Doctrinal And Historical Perspective


Chapter Two: The Origin And Evils Of Roman Catholicism


Chapter Three: The Organization Of The Roman Catholic Church


Chapter Four: The Doctrines Of The Roman Catholic Church


Chapter Five: The Arguments Of The Catholics Scripturally Answered


Chapter Six: An Apostolic Syllabus On The New Testament Church



Section 1-'' The Vatican Decrees And Their Bear-ing On Civil Allegiance'', by the Honorable William E. Gladstone


Section 2-"The History Of The Vatican Council And The Papal Syllabus", by Philip Schaff (The President Of The Committee Of The One Hundred And One Translators Of The American Standard Version Of The New Testament)


AUTHOR'S PREFACE Roman Catholicism is on the march. Its propaganda pro-claims the pope as the custodian of theism versus atheism and of freedom versus communism. But Catholicism is communism. The atheistic communism of totalitarian states is in reality a religious system under political cover; but Catholicism is a political system under the religious mask. They are both disguised; they are rival systems of regimentation: Catholicism and Communism-which is why Rome abhors Russia, and the Kremlin hates the Vatican. Both systems are intrinsically inimical to personal freedom, proposing complete regimenta-tion of every human being-political, social, racial and religious.

Roman Catholicism is therefore essentially not a church. It is a political state, a government. Proof of this rather bold declaration was factually presented by the world-renowned English statesman, member of parliament and one time Prime Minister of England, the very Honorable William E. Gladstone, in his answer to the Vatican Decrees following the promulgation of these black and brazen Roman decrees. It was Mr. Glad-stone's contention before the English assembly that no Roman Catholic should be seated in the Parliament, due to his un-deniable allegiance to a foreign political power-the Vatican state of Rome, to which the absolute and sworn fealty of every Roman Catholic is required. That is prime, all else secondary, to a Catholic citizen of England, of the United States of America, or of any other country on the face of the earth. Mr. Gladstone's premises being factual, his conclusions were valid; his argu-ments were unanswerable and his applications uncontrovertible.

The evil political character of this hierarchy, falsely called a church, is further disclosed in the reply to the Syllabus of Pius IX, by the eminent theologian Philip Schaff, soon after that papal encyclical was issued. Mr. Behalf is known the world over as president of the Revision Committee of the


American Standard Revised Version of the Bible. His scholar-ship is unquestionable, and his integrity unimpeachable. With the classical style of Schaff the scholar and the factual ac-curacy of Schaff the historian, Philip Schaff revealed the political machinations of Catholicism and removed the re-ligious mask of the papal prelates.

The inclusion of the invaluable treatises of these two eminent men, Gladstone and Schaff, without any other considerations, would make justifiable the printing of the present volume. With the horizon of civilization darkened by the menacing clouds of Catholicism; with presidents of our nation in this "land of the free and home of the brave" sending envoys from this government to the Vatican, under the solemn public and private protests of legions in our land who know what such action portends, it is time to attempt to awaken our people lest we find ourselves prostrate before the political power of Catholi-cism. We hold no fear of the Roman Catholic religion as a religion only; their claims can be refuted and their arguments answered, every salient point stripped. It has been done be-fore; it can be done now. The Vatican knows it, and con-sequently clamped the papal ban on public debate. They dare not face us in the open forum nor meet us on the polemic plat-form. They therefore work subversively; they are international termites, swarming in every nation, veritably seething in the sills beneath the floors of our own national structure. We need the foundation of our national house treated with the insecticide of information from the top officials of the legis-lative hall, executive house and judicial chamber down to the municipal magistrate and county court. This does not mean that Roman Catholics should be denied the freedom of religion, the heritage of all free men. It only means that they should not be permitted under the disguise of religion to destroy liberty in this nation, to give our government to the Vatican, to deliver our people to the pope and to enslave our children

again with the shackles of the Inquisition, in the fetters of the most sinister and insidious system this earth has ever known-

Roman Catholicism.


In the preparation for these addresses material was drawn from sources too numerous to mention, some quoted, some adapted without quotation, some paraphrased, some borrowed bodily, and for what is left when all that is sifted out some originality might be claimed. Born knowing nothing, my own knowledge in whatever degree it exists has been derived; and no direct operation has ever been performed on my mind privately or publicly to enable me to make replies and give answers which could not be accounted for on the basis of ordinary sense. Mine has not come by impartation, but in long hours of application, often all the night through. Many books have been read, but no bibliography is here included. With blanket acknowledgment originality is not claimed, unless it be in expression and style, arrangement and presentation of argument, manner of address and delivery. Even in that the influence of men who impressed me early in life enters claim, and for absolute originality for anything at all there is no certainty. So anything that would seem to belong to me is free to anyone else who would have whatever it is.

The one acknowledgment by personal mention the author wishes to make is in his judgment altogether proper. It is his expression of appreciation and word of gratitude to the elders of the Norhill Church Of Christ, Houston, Texas, whose broadened vision for the work and abounding love for the gospel led the congregation of which they are Overseers into the meetings that made it possible for this material to be presented from the platform, without which opportunity much of the preparation would never have been made. Though we are not unmindful nor unappreciative of the participation of the more than twenty Houston churches, commendation of which has more than once been voiced, whatever credit should be accorded for the initiation and execution of the Music Hall meetings is conceded to the Norhill church. It is truly "a golden candlestick" with Christ in the midst, and its elders are "stars in his right hand." Knowing them as the author of these addresses believes he knows them, it is his conviction


and confidence that they will never knowingly support any preacher who does not stand for the whole truth against the growing attitude of compromise that poses so great a threat to the church today, the certain omen of inevitable dissolution if it is not stopped still. The truth can do it; but the preaching of the truth is necessary. For that, brave elders and bold preachers are requisites. To all such elders of the churches of Christ and preachers of the gospel of Christ these volumes are faithfully inscribed.


Oklahoma City, Oklahoma July 6, 1951.



In January, 1945, a gospel meeting of eight days length was conducted in Houston, Texas, with twenty churches of Christ cooperating in the endeavor. The Norhill congregation sponsored the meeting, and invited the other Houston churches of Christ to assist. The meeting had as its theme: "Exposing Modern Millennial Theories." Foy E. Wallace Jr. was secured as the speaker. The huge and comfortable Music Hall was obtained, in order to accommodate the crowds. The sermons were recorded, and later published in a book, ''God's Prophetic Word." This volume is a veritable library on the gospel-contradicting heresies of millennialism, and is the most com-plete examination in that field of study ever published.

This great meeting was characterized by such preaching and crowds, and made such an impact upon the whole area, that a repeat engagement was made for the next year. Brother Wallace was again the first choice for speaker, with the Music Hall again being the scene of the services. It was decided that "The New Testament Church Contrasted With Denomination-alism" would be the theme for this meeting. The meeting was held for eight days in January, 1946, and was sponsored and supported exactly along the same lines as was the first one- except, that the support of churches of Christ in the Greater Houston area was even more pronounced and the general interest even greater than in the 1945 effort. Again, the sermons were recorded, and are here reproduced, with some additional material of great value, in "Bulwarks Of The Faith. "

"Bulwarks Of The Faith," in two parts, will do for de-nominational doctrines, both Catholic and Protestant, what "God's Prophetic Word" does for millennialism. Part One deals exhaustively, accurately, and instructively with Roman Catholicism, The writer believes that time will very shortly


find students acclaiming this as the ablest and most thorough work on the subject, and yet, boiled down so that the reader may see and understand the heart of the errors without having to wade through a tedious amount of data. Foy E. Wallace is a master at getting to the heart of a proposition, and then organizing and driving home his points in a manner which will stay with the hearer or reader. He who obtains this Part One will have a library of material on Catholicism possessed by comparatively few. And he who studies the data will more clearly see and be able to teach others more efficiently the gigantic fraud with which Catholicism tries to obscure the New Testament pattern for the Church.

Part Two of "Bulwarks Of The Faith" is equally worth-while in dealing with basic Protestant doctrines. Although the Baptist denomination is the only denominational group having a section of Part Two devoted to it as a separate body, the Baptist doctrines there examined, together with the several other human doctrines studied in the accompanying chapters, will substantially cover the field of key "commandments of men." While Parts One and Two of "Bulwarks Of The Faith" study in widely separated fields, Catholic and Protestant doc-trines are so related and entwined as to render each Part as valuable as the other, and one would be incomplete without the other.

He who lightly esteems the worth of books such as "Bul-warks Of The Faith" is either not informed on or is rebellious to Paul's declaration that "I am set for the defence of the gospel." (Phil. 1: 17) That statement was guided by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 2: 12, 13) It is for our instruction. We are ordered by the Spirit to "try the spirits whether they are of God." (1 Jno. 4: 1) Christ's preaching was both positive and negative-positive because He came to "bear witness unto the truth" (Jno. 18: 36); negative because He also came "that He might destroy the works of the devil" (1 Jno. 3: 8). Those who object to "negative, destructive preaching" would rule out the foregoing scriptures, as well as His statement to "be-


ware. .. . of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Saddu-cees." (Matt. 16: 12) In view of those scriptures and the ease with which many drift away from such "defence of the gos-pel," books such as "Bulwarks Of The Faith" deserve a wide circulation, plus serious and frequent study.

The author of this work has long been one of the most in-fluential preachers among churches of Christ. Born in Sep-tember, 1896, in Montague county, Texas, he was baptized into Christ in 1909, and began preaching at the age of fifteen. Almost all of those forty years of preaching have been spent in protracted meetings. He has been, and is yet, in constant demand from all over the nation.

Brother Wallace, in addition to being one of our top-flight preachers, has also given extraordinary service as a writer. He has served as editor successively of The Gospel Advocate, The Gospel Guardian, Bible Banner, and is now editing a monthly magazine, Torch. Through his writing, in addition to his preach-ing, he has exerted a far-reaching influence over the country, particularly in blocking the progress of false teaching and the inroads of all types of compromising movements. Such activity and success very naturally have provoked much enmity against him, but that is the price that must always be paid for maintaining such a position. The author has also been engaged in many major religious debates, and has stamped himself as having no superior in that field. In addition to being the author of "God's Prophetic Word" and "Bulwarks Of The Faith," brother Wallace is the author of "The Certified Gos-pel," a book of sermons of unusual merit. Another book, the "Neal-Wallace Discussion" on the thousand years reign of Christ, is one of the best debates in that field. These four great works will continue to contribute much to the doctrinal sound-ness of the church, and should be owned and studied by all people. Brother Wallace can look back on a life filled with accomplishments such as few men have known. But he is at the time in life now when for the next several years he should


be able to do the most effective work of his action-filled career, because of his experiences, preparation, ability, and being at the very prime of life. "Bulwarks Of The Faith" will go down in history, in the judgment of this writer, as a contribu-tion to the uninspired literature of the church that will be second to none.

-Jack Meyer






For this grand gathering we are devoutly glad. To a gracious God we are profoundly grateful. It is by his pro-vidence that we come to resume the special effort a year ago initiated, calculated then to be concluded in another meeting of that sort and of this sort. We are happy that God has made it possible for us to join together again in a mighty effort to advance the cause of Christ in Houston and vicinity. It need not be said, I believe, to any who know me and the brethren who are promoting this effort that our only aim is to preach the plain gospel of Christ. To that I dedi-cated my life early, and I have never consciously deviated from that early resolution. I shall not deviate from it in this meet-ing. Our slogan is: "Plain Bible Preaching." I stand before God as humbly as in human weakness I know how to stand, and I shall appear from time to time with you before God.

Now we begin the first study of this meeting with the theme that was announced in the printed advertisements: "Viewing the Walls-A Historical and Doctrinal Perspec-tive." You can understand by the nature of that announce-ment the ground to be covered this afternoon. We want to lay the foundation, or state the general principles, upon which the future services of this meeting will be based. When Democratic and Republican conventions assemble to nominate candidates for the high office of President, you know there is a keynote address of the convention, which embodies a general statement of the principles of their respec-tive platforms. The purpose of this lesson this afternoon is a keynote statement of principles. I read a few lines from


the first chapter of Nehemiah: "The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah. And it came to pass in the month of Chisleu, in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan the palace, that Hanani, one of my brethren, came, he and certain men of Judah; and I asked them concerning the Jews that had escaped, which were left of the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem. And they said unto me, The remnant that are left of the captivity there in the province are in great affliction and reproach; the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire. And it came to pass when I heard these words, that I sat down and wept, and mourned certain days, and fasted, and prayed before the God of heaven, and said, I beseech thee, O Lord God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments: let thine ear now be attentive, and thine eyes open, that thou mayest hear the prayer of thy servant, which I pray before thee now, day and night, for the children of Israel thy servants, and confess the sins of the children of Israel, which we have sinned against thee: both I and my father's house have sinned. We have dealt very corruptly against thee, and have not kept the commandments, nor the statutes, nor the judg-ments, which thou commandedst thy servant Moses. Remem-ber, I beseech thee, the word that thou commandedst thy servant Moses saying, If ye transgress, I will scatter you abroad among the nations: but if ye turn unto me, and keep my commandments, and do them; though there were of you cast out unto the uttermost part of the heaven, yet will I gather them from thence, and will bring them unto the place that I have chosen to set my name there. Now these are thy servants and thy people, whom thou hast redeemed by thy great power, and by thy strong hand. O Lord, I beseech thee, let now thine ear be attentive to the prayer of thy servant, and to the prayer of thy servants, who desire to fear thy name: and prosper, I pray thee, thy servant this day, and grant him mercy in the sight of this man. For I was the king's cupbearer."

I have taken the time to read the entire first chapter of Nehemiah, because I think that it states the principles of this lesson, and the purpose of this meeting.

Nehemiah, cupbearer to king Artaxerxes, was of sad countenance in Babylon, because of the condition of the walls of Jerusalem in Judea. He was among the captives in Babylon. Under the edict of Cyrus, the Hebrews had been released from Babylon, but had returned in contingents, some having re-mained in Babylon. The temple had been rebuilt, but the walls of Jerusalem remained in dilapidation. It grieved the heart of Nehemiah that the walls of Jerusalem should be broken down and with sad countenance he appeared before the king. The result was that Nehemiah was granted leave to go to Jerusalem to initiate and execute plans for the re-building the walls of Jerusalem. I believe, friends, that the story of Nehemiah furnishes both a doctrinal and historical parallel in the work and worship of the church.



The story of Nehemiah is but the story of Jerusalem after all. The book of Nehemiah is sometimes considered minor, not so important, but contrariwise, it is the story of a true patriot; of loyalty to a divine cause; of the sacrifices of a renowned people to keep alive the principles that gave birth to a nation that lived through Old Testament eras and ages, to accomplish the purpose of Almighty God. In this sacred story there are a number of parallels that I want to draw.

First: Jerusalem.

(1) There is the sacred and secular history of Jerusalem. I mean by the word "secular" that Jerusalem has its tem-poral history. I mean by the word "sacred" that it has its religious history. Jerusalem-sacred and secular. Holy ground to the Jew, and events no less sacred to the Christian; the temple of Solomon, the house of God; the ark of the


covenant, the name of Jehovah; marvelous works wrought by priest and prophets of Old Testament ages, and achieve-ments of faith during the centuries when Christianity was being set forth in types, in metaphors, and in symbols-things which were but shadows of good things to come. Within the walls of Jerusalem Jesus wept for its plight, and without its walls He died for our sins. To the Jew it has a sacred significance in the things of the past; to the Christian it has divine significance in the things of the present. Jerusalem cannot be left out of any consideration of Christianity, doc-trinally or historically. Time has not dimmed the memory nor dulled the reverence in the hearts of God's people for the sacred city, nor faded the glory surrounding it.

(2) In this view of Jerusalem there is a spiritual proto-type, mentioned by Paul in Galatians four. In his compari-son of Judaism and Christianity he refers to "the Jerusalem which is above, the mother of us all." We are not children of the old Jerusalem. Its importance in New Testament affairs is due to its place in type and antitype, and to the fact that in Jerusalem the church of Jesus Christ was inaugurated. The New Testament institution was founded on the day of Pentecost in the city of Jerusalem. So the "Jerusalem which is above," which is "the mother of us all," is spiritual Jerusa-lem, the New Covenant. The true Jerusalem, like the "true Israel," exists in the New Covenant which stands in the allegory as the "mother of us all," because the difference between Jew and Gentile is broken down and all are one in Christ.

Second: The Captivity.

Reverting again to the parallel between the Old and the New-after the establishment of that special nation in the Old Testament, known first as the "Hebrews" and later as "Jews"-God's people, because of their departures from his word and his will, were carried into Babylonian captivity. The purpose of the establishment of that special nation was to preserve the name of God in a heathen world.

(1) A brief narrative of developments in the history of the race is in order. In the sixth chapter of Genesis, we have the record of the first universal apostasy, where it is recorded that "the sons of God married the daughters of men," the result of which was total apostasy, universal depravity. The sons of God were men who reverenced God, doubtless the descendants of Seth. Because of their higher plane of life, above the sensual, they had merited the designation "sons of God." The "daughters of men" were those wicked, idola-trous Cainite women, beautiful and fair but without virtue; possessed of physical grace but spiritually depraved, whose ungodliness of conduct was concealed by outward charm and beauty. When the sons of God were thus lured by the daughters of men to abandon their high plane of holiness, to descend to the sensuality of polygamy, "taking wives of all they chose," the last vestige of spirituality was swept from the earth. Thus it was when God saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every imagination of his heart was evil, only evil, and that continually, he determined to purge the world with a flood. The first universal apostasy resulted, therefore, in the renovation of the earth and the establishment of a new race, headed by Noah, who "found favor in the sight of the Lord."

In this new order two lines branched out from Noah just as the two lines of Cain and Seth had stemmed from Adam and Eve, and the descendants of Noah were divided again into two classes: descendants of Shem who were wicked and idolatrous, and the descendants of Japheth who obeyed and reverenced God. The streams of history merge again in the eleventh chapter of Genesis where a second universal apostasy is threatened. This connection concerns the tower and the city of Babel, when through the instrument of one tongue men undertook to unify the whole race of man in rebellion against God. I am impressed with the fact that through the power of one language, unity of speech could be exerted toward the end of uniting the whole race in universal


apostasy. The power of a united speech in religion today would be no less potent in the advancement of truth. If unity in error is powerful, certainly unity in truth is no less powerful.

The building of Babel represented an attempt to throw off the government of God and to unite the whole race of man in apostasy. A second universal apostasy was threatened. In Genesis six the first one became a reality. In Genesis eleven a second one was developing. God broke up that party by the confusion of tongues, but even so it demonstrated that God could not use the race of man as a whole through which to operate in the development of the scheme of redemp-tion, to ripen the race and ready the world for the coming of the Redeemer.

The next step was the call of Abram. In the twelfth chapter of Genesis, the record says that God "had said to Abram, get thee out from thy country." The twelfth chapter of Genesis is not the call of Abram, but records the fact that God "had said" unto Abram. The call of Abram was the sequel to the episode of Babel. Once he had purged the world of its wickedness. One universal apostasy had occurred. Now the same thing is again threatened. Thus when God saw that he could not operate through the race of man as a whole, he resolved to establish a separate race, a special nation through which to operate in order to preserve the name of God, and to make the world ripe and get it ready for the coming of the Redeemer. That he might establish that special nation, that special race, God called Abraham, and said, "Get thee out." True religion would be smothered out in Mesopotamia. It must have a separate sphere in which to unfold itself. God called Abraham out of the Ur of the Chaldees that he might establish out of his loins a special nation for a special purpose. That special nation was the Hebrew race. That special purpose was to furnish God the medium through which to operate in Old Testament times until the coming of his Son, the world's Redeemer, and the establishment of the new spiritual nation. Just as we have the prototype of the old Jerusalem, just as we have the type and the antitype in the two Jerusalems, we see the same parallel in the two nations. Old Jerusalem and new Jerusa-lem, old Israel and new Israel, the old fleshly nation and the new spiritual nation-the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

(2) The history of national Israel is a long story of dis-obedience to God resulting finally in exile and captivity. The prophets warned, the prophets pleaded, but Israel was dull of hearing. Bent on disobedience to God disaster came. It was in six hundred B. C. that Jerusalem was besieged, and in three detachments the Jews were carried away. Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the city, and in the first con-tingent some eighteen thousand Jews were taken to Babylon. Jehoiakim, eight years old, was set on the throne. He reigned three months and ten days. The princes of Judah under him sought an alliance with Egypt, which aroused Nebuchadnezzar. A second move was made against the city, resulting in the taking of ten thousand in that detach-ment to Babylon. Then Zedekiah, an unfaithful prince of Nebuchadnezzar, occupied the throne, but it was not David's. The throne of David became extinct with Coniah, the last man to occupy it in fact; but Zedekiah held the throne as an appointee of Nebuchadnezzar, a mere prince of the king of Babylon. Zedekiah, being unfaithful to his oath, caused Nebuchadnezzar to move against the city the third time, to destroy the city, to level its walls, to burn it and sack it, and in this siege the remainder of its inhabitants were carried away. Thus, friends, runs the tragic story of Israel's dis-obedience to God, with the sad result of dispersion and exile.

Third: The Restoration.

The cause and the cure of these conditions are the burden of Nehemiah's prayer in the first chapter of Nehe-miah. It points out the cause of their captivity and the cure for their plight. The cause was rebellion and disobedience.


The cure was complete repentance, confession, and restitution, not only a return to Judea but a restoration to God.

(1) It was under the edict of Cyrus that the Hebrews were emancipated. The Babylonian captivity was the mid-night of Hebrew history. Memories of the departed glory of their nation filled their hearts with remorse. The prophets warned and comforted, preached and promised, kept faith alive and hope revived until redemption came. Finally, Babylon fell and the edict of Cyrus emancipated Israel and sent them back to Jerusalem.

As the story goes Nebuchadnezzar was followed on the throne by Belshazzar, his grandson. Belshazzar threw a party in Babylon one night, and it was "some party." The description of that orgy of revelry and dissipation would be too long to relate at this time. But, you know, the om-inous handwriting appeared on the wall, and the dreadful doom, to the consternation of Babylon's celebrities, was pronounced upon Belshazzar and his kingdom. At that very moment the Persian army was on the outside hammering at the walls of Babylon. But the walls of Babylon were impervious to attack. No instruments or implements of war in that day and time could breach the walls of Babylon. The Persians, endeavoring to undermine the walls, attempting to change the course of the river to gain entrance into the city through an engineering feat, had not succeeded. But in that night of terrible dissipation and gross negligence the gates of the city of Babylon were left open, the Persian army entered, Belshazzar was slain, Babylon fell. Media and Persia united into the Medo-Persian Empire, under Darius and Cyrus. When Cyrus came to the throne he looked upon the weeping, wailing Jews, their harps hanging on the willows, their hearts sighing and crying for their land and their God; and he issued their emancipation proclamation-"Let the exiles go free," and provided them with money and material to lay the foundation for the rebuilding of their temple. Thus Israel was released from the fetters that bound them in Babylon, and granted


freedom to return, as many as desired, to their own land. If all did not return, which they did not, it was their own fault or failure. All had the opportunity to return.

(2) The spiritual application of the lesson is in the Baby-lon of apostasy. In a prophecy concerning Israel in Babylon, Isaiah said: "Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go out of the midst of her; be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord" (Isa. 52:11) Quoting this prophecy in Second Corinthians 6:17-18, Paul said: "Where-fore come ye out from among them, and I will receive you, and will be to you a father, and ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." This scriptural appli-cation is made to the Babylon of human creeds and human institutions. Babylon today exists in modern denomination-alism. Isaiah said, "Depart-go out." Paul said, "Come ye out." The context of each passage condemns affiliations and calls for separation-complete separation. The church of Christ must be separate in organization, in doctrine, in wor-ship in name and in work from denominations today. We are a separate people. Affiliations destroy identity. God says, "Be ye separate."

Fourth: The Reconstruction.

Within the city was organized opposition to the work: Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem. They belonged to the Samaritans. The Samaritans instigated a state of mutiny, strife was engendered, in opposition to the work of Nehemiah. Darius restored order by an edict, inasmuch as he himself had given authority for the work to be done, and it proceeded. In collaboration with Ezra the law was restored and the worship resumed in Jerusalem. The parallel is found, friends, in the restoration of the ancient order in religion today.

(1) There are three sections to that story-Return, Re-store, Rebuild. The three sections of the story surround three characters-Zerrubbabel, Nehemiah, Ezra. Zerubbabel rebuilt the temple, Nehemiah repaired the walls, and Ezra restored the law. Whereas once the memories of the departed grandeur of their nation had filled their Jewish hearts for near a century, now multitudes of those who had wept beside the waters of Babylon were shouting around the rebuilt temple, within repaired walls, and under the restored law of their God in Jerusalem.

(3) There are three periods of church history-Perfec-tion, Apostasy, and Restoration. In Jeremiah 6:16, the old prophet said, "Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." There the principles of restoring the ancient order in any and every age of the world are stated in order- apostasy, reformation, and restoration. Israel went into cap-tivity by apostasy; came out by reformation, amending their ways, and only through reformation did God grant their restoration.

The periods of church history named form the counter-part of all of that. In the New Testament order we have the period of perfection-the New Testament era itself. The New Testament is the perfect pattern. It gives the de-scription of the perfect church. That is period number one- the period of perfection. Shortly after the New Testament era the period of departure developed, when men deviated from the divine pattern and set up their own order: creeds, liturgies, disciplines, articles, manuals, confessions, and cate-chisms. The New Testament order was perverted in organi-zation from the autonomy of the New Testament church- the congregation, with its plurality of elders in every church, with deacons, and members, to that of episcopal dioceses. The New Testament order was corrupted. Men began to extend their authority-a bishop, over a plurality of "churches; the archbishop; the diocesan bishop (that was a big word, and I came near not getting that one out!)-but the di-oc-e-san bishop, a bishop over a diocese of bishops; bishop over many bishops is the idea. In that system elders are subject to a bishop; bishops are subject to an archbishop; and archbishops subject to the diocesan head. From the archbishop, you can see that it was an easy step to the pope, because the pope of Rome is just an overgrown, metropolitan bishop. That is a mild statement compared with some that shall follow further down the line in this meeting. The pope of Rome is an over-grown, metropolitan bishop-nothing more, nothing less-a complete apostasy, perversion, degradation, and corruption of the organization of the New Testament church.

Thus we have in the New Testament counterpart: period number one, the era of perfection; period number two, the era of departure; period number three, the era of apostasy, the Dark Ages. As Babylon was the midnight of Hebrew history, in the seventy years in Babylon, the Dark Ages for the Jews, we have the Dark Ages of apostasy from the New Testament church, when from the sixth to the sixteenth centuries the abominations of the Roman Catholic church deluged the earth. The New Testament order was abandoned. The hierarchy of the "Holy Roman Empire" (with three question marks punctuating that term) was the order of the day.

Hierarchy means "the rule of the priesthood." That is what the word means-the rule of priests, hence, hierarchy -the whole church ruled by the priesthood. Then there are the words "sacerdotalism" and "sacramentalism," two words that go together. One represents the priestly function, sacer-dotalism; the other represents a set of human ordinances emanating from Rome, the sacraments, they call it. Sacra-mentalism, issues out of human authority of the Roman hierarchy-a child of sacerdotalism.

As time went on, a few noble souls survived who would not bow the knee to Baal. We hear the voices of Huss, Wy-clif, and Savonarola; men who gave their lives for the cause of freedom; men who believed they had a right to think for themselves, and that the pope had no right to dominate the minds of men-politically, religiously, or otherwise; that man



is a creature of volition with the inherent freedom of choice in the exercise of his own will. After all, men are free and the pope had no right to enslave them-that was the plea of Huss, Wyclif, and Savonarola.

I listened in on "Catholic Hour" on the radio, and heard a statement from an authority of the Catholic church that "the world is indebted to the Roman Catholic church for the Bible." Now friends, frankly, my blood boiled. Im-mediately my mind flashed back over the pages of history to Wyclif, Huss, Savonarola, and Luther. What was the crime of Wyclif? It was translating the Scriptures into the ver-nacular of the people so they could read it. Why did they dig up his remains, burn his bones, and scatter his ashes to the wind? What was wrong with Wyclif? He wanted the people to have the Bible. Stand with Luther at the Diet of Worms where he defied the powers of the hierarchy, including the pontiff himself. What was wrong with Luther? He wanted the people to have the Bible. He twisted the Bible out of the hands of the pope and the priest, the clergy and prelate, and put it back into the hands of the people, where they could read it for themselves. Why did they murder and martyr thousands of noble men, persecute and penalize inno-cent women and children? Because they would not yield to the demands of the priesthood. Therefore they were tortured, martyred, and massacred-their bodies burned, their bones cremated and their ashes scattered to the winds and the waters. And now to hear the audacity of a Roman Catholic to assert on the radio to an enlightened American people, some of whom still have a knowledge of historical facts, that the world is indebted to the Roman Catholic church for the Bible! It is the one institution that made every effort under the sun to withhold it. The well known doctrine of Rome is that the Bible was never intended for the laity: to Catholics the Bible is a proscribed (prohibited) book. The Dark Ages, to be sure, furnish ample testimony to sustain these statements.

Let me return to Nehemiah, lest I lose the parallel.

Fifth: The Opposition.

Antagonism to the truth in all ages has been of the same pattern, operating on the same principles.

(1) There was a foreign element within Jerusalem-the Samaritans.

They were a people who originated about seven hundred twenty-one B. C. In the captivity of Israel by Shalmaneser, the cities of Samaria were depopulated, later to be filled by the king with his own people. When the Assyrian element filled the cities that had been depopulated, an affiliation re-sulted. This amalgamation appears to have produced the mongrel people, called the "Samaritans"-a mixture of Israel-ites and Assyrians. This foreign element among the Jews opposed the work of Nehemiah and Ezra in restoring the ancient order of the Old Testament. There are sectarian elements hindering the efforts to restore the New Testament order today. When a mighty movement to restore the New Testament church was set in motion, liturgy, creeds, orthodox denominationalism held sway. The heroic reformations of Luther, Calvin and Wesley had sent Rome reeling under their mighty blows. But out of these reformatory movements came protestant denominationalism.

Let me have three or four song books and I will illustrate it. (Songbooks were handed the speaker). When Martin Luther came on the scene the Bible was covered up (stacks books on the Bible) beneath Catholic creeds-edicts, decrees, encyclicals, manifestoes of Rome, her pope and councils. Luther's task was to uncover the Bible, to take papal encyclicals and oecumenical creeds off the Bible. He took them off (takes books off Bible) one by one, laid them aside and handed the Bible back to the people. That was a worthy work. Then Luther turned right around, »wrote a creed and put it on top of the Bible (puts books back on Bible); Wesley and Calvin wrote creeds and put them on top of the Bible; other men wrote creeds and put them back on top of the Bible; and


now the Bible is covered up with Protestant creeds. Now the task is to again uncover the Bible, take Protestant, orthodox denominational creeds off of it, and lay them aside.

The essence of Protestantism is creedism. I am neither Catholic nor Protestant, friends. I am not a Catholic. I am not a Protestant. The term "Protestant" originated, it appears in the second Diet of Worms, about 1526. Because of a certain protest that was being made against ecclesiasticism which entered in the hierarchy of Rome, they were denominated "Protestants." Somebody says, "Don't you protest against Catholicism?" Sure, I do; and I protest against Protestantism, too. So, if I am a Protestant as such, with a big "P," because I protest against Catholicism, then I would have to be a prot-estant with a little "p," because I protest against Protestantism. But with me the size of the "p," is the same in both cases. I protest against one as much and as loudly as I protest against the other. We are here to put up a plea for pure, undenominational, New Testament Christianity, the only Christianity there is or can be, and we want the Sanballats out of the way so that the work may proceed without having to be shackled by creeds, liturgies, and humanisms. We insist on complete and absolute respect for the authority of the New Testament in preaching and practice. The only way com-plete restoration can be accomplished is to lay aside party names, party creeds, party doctrines, dogmas and ordinances, and return to the New Testament.

I am reminded of a thing that occurred a few years ago in one of our cities here in Texas, in the experience of one of our pioneer preachers. The churches in that town de-cided they would try to get together, and just have one church. The idea of a community church had just begun to "pop-up" over the country, you know; a community church-they would all merge into one community church; not surrender any article of belief or faith, but just have a sort of "federated" church. I hardly know how to describe it. There is a dish the women call "salad." It is a gom of this, and a little dab of that, and a general mixture of nearly everything else, with some of that "mayonnaise" spattered on top of it (not fit for a pig to eat, but they feed it to the preachers!). Deliver me, ladies, from that part of it! At least, take the mayonnaise off if you are going to feed it to me! Anyhow, this federated church idea is a little dab of this religion, and a little gom of that religion, and a general mix-ture of everybody's religion, stirred up into a "community church." It is a farce, a travesty on the meaning of the term unity. There is no unity in it. It is simply a conglomeration of religious salad!

Well, these particular preachers came together to discuss unity or union, and each preacher brought two books: his Bible, and his creed. But they got nowhere fast. They could not decide anything. In that town was this gospel preacher. Hearing about this meeting of preachers, he went and asked for admission. The preachers replied that they had not gotten anywhere. He asked, "What seems to be the trouble?" They replied "We just can't seem to agree." He questioned, "Have you decided what shall be the standard of authority?" They admitted that they had not. He took one book out of the hand of a preacher, his creed, and held it up before them and said, "Will you all take this book as the right standard of authority?" The one whose creed it was said he would, but the others would not. "That eliminates book number one," he said. He took another book and held it up, and said, "Will you all take this book as the right standard of authority?" The one whose creed it was said he would, but the others said they would not, and that eliminated number two. So he took each creed, one by one, eliminated them and laid them aside. Each preacher would accept his own particular creed, but the others would not. Then he took up the Bible, held it before them, and said, "Will you all accept this book as the right standard of authority?" You know what occurred? One of the preachers made a motion to adjourn, and it car-ried!

The essence of Protestantism is creedism. Protestant preachers will give up the Bible and cling to their creeds, rather than give up their creeds and cling to the Bible. Between the abominations of Roman Catholicism on one hand and the dissensions and discords of Orthodox Protest-antism on the other hand, the faith of the world has been paralyzed. We are here to try to offer a remedy for the paralyzed faith of myriads of sincere people in the world. There are countless thousands of honest Roman Catholics. There are countless thousands of honest Protestant denomi-national people. And I believe that when men and women possess the elements of honesty and sincerity they can come to the word of God, read it, hear it preached, and find a solution to the mysticism and darkness in which they have groped.

(2) There are foreign and sectarian elements within the church.

Paul besought the Roman church to "mark" and "avoid" all such-Rom. 16;17. He told the Corinthians that such were "false" and "deceitful" workers of wickedness in the church-2 Cor. 11:13-15. And he told the Galatians that there were "false brethren unawares brought in," to whom he "gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour" in de-fense of the gospel-Gal. 2:4-5. And in second Timothy four the apostle lists the steps that lead away: "preach the word ....the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine ......having itching earsthey will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts . . . turn away their ears from the truth . . . . turn unto fables."

Apostasy starts in an attitude toward the truth. Go back over the years of the "restoration movement" when a few noble men laid down the proposition to speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where the Bible is silent. That was the plea on which the restoration of the New Testament order of things was proposed. But there grew up an element within whose attitude toward that principle changed. Their attitude toward the gospel changed. Compromise became the order of the day. They would not "endure sound doctrine." They had "itching ears." They heaped to themselves teachers "after their own lusts." They "turned unto fables." When ears itch they have to be scratched, too. The itch just has to be scratched. So when the ears get the itch, they have to be scratched. The particular one to do the scratching in that case is the teacher. So, with itching ears they engage them-selves teachers.

Affiliation with error exists first, in an attitude; second, in engaging teachers; third, in turning away the ears from the truth; and fourth, turning unto fables; and apostasy is complete. There we have the four steps: First, the wrong attitude toward the truth; do you see it growing up? then watch it. Second, an affiliation with error; do you see it being formed? nip it in the bud. Third, an abandonment of truth, turning away from it, will not even hear it; have you observed some refusing plain preaching? mark them. Fourth, the final step-turning to fables-gone for good.

These principles characterize departure and apostasy among those of that description in churches of Christ to-day. They are sure and unmistable signs of apostasy.

Sixth: The Causes Of Success.

In the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem success was due first, to their willingness to overcome ridicule. Satan has always tried to minimize. Second, their ability to over-come threatening force on the part of Sanballat. Third, refusal to compromise when Sanballat's ridicule did not work.

When his threats of force did not work, Sanballat said, "Come out on the plains of Ono, and meet with us, and let us talk it over." Was there any "harm" in Nehemiah going out there to meet with Sanballat and those fellows? Was not Nehemiah able to"takecareof himself"? That was not the


thing involved. It was not a matter of whether he was able to take care of himself in a conference with Sanballat. It was the principle of yielding to a proposition, to a gesture of compromise. He refused to do it, and said, "We are too busy, we cannot negotiate with you." He refused the three offers of compromise as fast as they came.

A fourth cause of success was in the fearlessness of threats of assassination when they sought to intimidate Nehemiah and run him out of Jerusalem. A messenger came to Ne-hemiah by night, reporting a plot to waylay Nehemiah and to take his life. He had better flee! Nehemiah said, "Should such a man as I flee?" That was his answer. Should such man as I flee? He refused. He stood by his task against the hirelings, all who opposed his efforts and his work, and carried it through to a grand success.

Against these schemes of Sanballat was Nehemiah's own attitude: his concern for the cause shown in his "sad coun-tenance" before his king that won him permission to go and rebuild the walls. The question of Jeremiah, Lamen-tations 1:12, is applicable even now. "Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by?" That was the question of Jeremiah to the people of Israel. When they became so indifferent that the condition of Israel was of no concern to them. Though the whole nation was threatened with captivity and exile, they were indifferent; they could not be stirred to even a look of interest as they passed. "Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by?" When the members of the church lose their concern for the cause of Christ and the purity of the gospel of Christ, and reach the point where they cannot be stirred to action, to a firm, faithful defense of the principles of the gospel, then we have the spiritual counterpart of apostatizing Israel. Let us not reach that point, but with the spirit of Nehemiah and his helpers let us resolve to overcome every obstacle in the way of the complete restoration of the New Testament Church". The spirit all of us should possess is exemplified in Nehemiah.


1. Nehemiah nourished a sincere concern for the cause he espoused. The cause of Christ deserves, requires the devo-tion of its advocates.

2. He had confidence in his cause. The gospel is worthy of undaunted adherents who never doubt their cause.

3. He armed himself for fight-hammer and sword. Gospel preaching is of the kind suggested by both figures.

4. His personal sacrifices became the test. Giving and doing go together.

5. He refused all overtures-truth and error do not meet at conference tables.

6. He maintained the unity of his fighting forces. It was Lord Nelson, at Trafalgar, who said to two of his generals who were not on speaking terms: "Gentlemen, yonder is the enemy; above you flies the flag of your country; shake hands and fight this battle together." They did-and the victory lives in the hearts of all Englishmen today, and in the destiny of Britian and her dominions.

The battle for the truth calls for unity-a fighting unity -not love-feast compromises. Let us stand together-fight together-and if necessary die together-for the gospel of Christ.



The point of view is important. What we see depends on where we look. The field of doctrine should be observed from the tactical location.

First: Viewing The Walls At the Water Gate.

Now it may have been a purely incidental thing that Nehemiah viewed the walls of Jerusalem from the vantage point of "the water gate." But it is suggestive. In the progress


of the gospel of Christ and the church of Jesus Christ the walls appear to break down at the water gate.

(1) The doctrinal vantage point. We had better get back there to the water gate, and look the field of doctrine over. When people come to the state of mind that they do not believe what Jesus Christ says on a point of doctrine, the wall is broken down at the water gate. A doctrinal perspective is necessary.

(2) The condition calls for the re-indoctrination of the church. The same ground of doctrine needs a constant going over. The ignorance of the people is the cause of departure. When people are informed on errors of the day they are prepared to deal with them. Abraham Lincoln said, "Let the people know the truth and this country is safe." I say, let the church know the truth, let the members of the church know the truth, and the church will be safe. The ignorance that prevails in religious circles, in denominational bodies, is creeping into the church, and is a definite danger to the New Testament order of things.

(3) We plead for an intelligent study and knowledge of God's word. We plead for the abandonment of the creeds, Catholic and Protestant, and a respect for the constituted authority of the New Testament.

Second: Reversing The Scriptural Slogan.

The slogan says, "Where the scriptures speak let us speak, and where the scriptures are silent let us be silent." In the words of inspiration, "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God"-1 Pet. 4:11. There are di-gressive preachers of the Christian Church and certain com-promisers among ourselves, in some quarters, who have openly advocated a reversal of the slogan, and would say, "Where the Bible is silent let us speak." We still say "where the Bible speaks let us speak, and where the Bible is silent let us be silent." The reversal of the slogan suggests "where the Bible

is silent let us speak, and where we speak let the Bible be silent."

(1) The scriptural attitude.

There is both precept and example in the word of God for the attitude in which we hold those who have spoiled the unity of the church by their' innovations. For a precept just take a look at Rom. 16:17: "Now, I beseech you brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which we have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." No passage could better describe the purposes of the recent "National Unity Meetings" nor better define the character of their leaders. Such so-called "unity meetings" are a travesty on the nature and meaning of scriptural unity, and it is pitiable that some otherwise loyal and good brethren have been deceived by their "good words and fair speeches."

If fellowship can be extended in such meetings to those who have been marked for their innovations, then it was wrong to mark them. But they were marked, according to Rom. 16:17, as dividers and offenders contrary to the doc-trine we have learned. If it was right to mark them, they should be avoided, and it is wrong to fellowship them.

An example of this attitude is found in the ancient case of Nehemiah, the basis of our whole line of discussion to-day. The Samaritans at the first regarded Nehemiah's ef-fort to rebuild the broken wall of Jerusalem as too feeble to oppose. They ignored him. They scoffed. But when they saw the work succeeding, when "the breaches began to be stopped," they "conspired all of them together to come and to fight." Thus did these digressive dividers who later, after much scoffing, attempted to sustain their cause in debate. They launched a mighty fight. Their greatest men labored hard to uphold the use of instrumental music in the worship of the church, battling for the music to the tune of arguments on the Greek verb "psallo," which by their own testimony did and did not prove it, for it was at best only a with or a without argument. So they abandoned the idea of fighting, debating, and the like, and now, like the strategy of Sanballat, they proposition us: "Come, let us meet together." Now they would just "love it out," and cloud the issue with compromises. But Nehemiah said, "They thought to do me mischief" and sent back the word, "I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down: why should the work cease whilst I leave, and come down to you?" The strategy of these digressive Samaritans and Sanballats today from first to last has been uniformly true to form. Strategy has ever been the weapon of digression. It was such as that which brought the wily schemes of digressive leaders into the open fifty years ago when the church in Texas was ripped apart by meetings conducted under the misnomer of "Unity Conferences." They are up to no good thing now in the promotion of such efforts through certain self-appointed leaders in the churches of Christ.

(2) Getting beyond the slogan.

It is now claimed that all the differences are over an interpretation of a slogan-a mere human slogan-to "speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where the Bible is silent." They want the slogan reversed to mean "where the Bible is silent we speak." They would detract and divert attention from their practice to a so-called slogan. But it is their practice, not a slogan, that has divided the church. The slogan to which they refer, as worded by Thomas Campbell while he was yet a Presbyterian, was incidental; but the same principle as worded by Simon Peter, called to be an apostle, was inspired. It reads: "If any man speak let him speak as the oracles of God." Will they attempt to reverse that? What they have now branded as a human slogan is not a human principle. The real issue is-Is it true or false? Who is conforming to it and who is not?


The restatement of the slogan decrees that where the Bible is silent we may speak, because we are not bound. Strange juggling of a slogan indeed that would make it mean the very opposite of what it says. Yet they now insist that this is what the framers of the slogan "really meant"! Well, I wonder what Peter "really meant"-just the opposite of what the Holy Spirit caused him to say also?

But here a divine precept speaks again: "That ye may learn not to go beyond the things that are written"-Paul, in 1 Cor. 4:6. Does that read like we may speak where the word of God is silent? Or did Paul "really mean" what he said? The only conclusions to be reached from the ob-jections to the pioneer slogan is that they do not now want to "speak where the Bible speaks" and "be silent where the Bible is silent." That slogan is in their way. They now break down and admit that they are speaking where the Bible is silent, and inform us that they aim to keep on doing so. So this is their defense of the instrumental music innova-tion-down to date. It furnishes their admission that the practice is without scriptural authority, and the use of it is speaking where the Bible is silent. It is the admission that the Bible is silent on the use of instrumental music in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. A vital admission, indeed. What becomes of their argument that "psallo" teaches it? What about their claims of scriptural authority, apostolic example, the music in heaven argument, the church-heaven argument, and all the efforts of their debaters to find authority for its use? These late admissions are a complete surrender of every argument ever offered in debate-a concession that they are all wrong. And they now cover the shame of their innovations with the mantle of a "silence slogan"! What a retreat! The only consistent proposition they may now ever offer for debate is this: Does the silence of the New Testament authorize instrumental music in the church? I hereby accept the negative of this proposition and ask any of their representa-tive men to defend that affirmation on the polemic rostrum.

That should clear the issue and serve to either expedite or fatally ignite these so-called "unity meetings."

(3) Authority in areas of silence.

Comes now a new leader of the digressive defection claiming authority to act for himself, decide for himself, in any matter concerning which there is no direct teaching. In these "areas of silence" all have the liberty to do as they please-in all "areas" where Christ left no plain instructions, he has by that fact granted every local church to decide what it shall teach and practice. That is certainly a wide liberty with a broad license. It would give to every man Jew, Catholic, Pagan and Protestant, the liberty to introduce into the wor-ship, or practice in his religion any unauthorized thing on earth, just so it is not specifically condemned and prohibited by a scripture injunction. What a sweeping apology for innovation! What religions to behold, when every man possesses authority in "areas of silence" or "act for myself" in religious thought and practice. It occurs to me that such a rule of action will turn into "acres of silence" and miles of innovation.

There are some passages of scripture that were evidently put on record to govern these "areas of silence." One of them reads: "Whosoever transgresseth (goeth onward) and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God"-2 Jno. 1:9. Another one reads: "That ye may learn not to go beyond the things that are written."-1 Cor. 4:6. The claims of these leaders of digression in the churches for one's right to adopt practices in the church for which there is no instruction, is simply the further concession on their part that the New Testament does not furnish authority by precept or example for their innovations, and they must seek sanction from some other source for their unlawful practices. They have located their innovations in "areas of silence," a sort of vast "no man's land" in religious authority, where Methodists may find their infant membership and sprinkling for baptism, where Catholics


may find holy water, incense, the rosary and kissing the pope's big toe-and where the digressives may find their instrumental music in the worship! These weighty admissions will surely have a distinct bearing on the future discussion of these decisive issues.

The present-day attitude of the leaders of these digressive movements in the church can now be summed up as follows:

1. The sophistical interpretation of the "restoration slogan."

2. The loose references to the authority of Jesus Christ and of the New Testament.

3. The effort to subordinate churches and preachers to unity meetings and delegate conventions, clothed with official rights.

4. The plea for congregational liberty to use instrumental music in the church under the rule of silence.

5. The same old nomenclature in the use of the terms "progressive" and "conservative" showing that they regard their innovations as marks of progression and the opposition to them as non-progressive.

6. The fact that they have yielded nothing, have no intention of doing so, and seek advantage through some in-nocent and guileless brethren, and others neither innocent nor guileless, to gain a vantage ground among churches of Christ. It all shows that the digressives are still digressives, never have been and never will be, as such, anything else.

Instrumental music was never the real issue. The actual issue is now and has always been the authority of the New Testament. The music question was only the horse they rode out on; and if the music question were eliminated, the real issue would remain and manifest itself along manifold other lines, centering in whatever particular practice they regarded to be most convenient as an issue.

The course of their own movement of innovation and di-gression is proof that they have not God-he has not been with them. From one extreme to another they went in their own human will and way until their apostasy became complete. They exist today as a full-fledged denomination in their own human right, with none of the distinguishing characteristics of the New Testament church or marks of identification. Truly, "they went out from us" because "they were not of us." And as John continued, "if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us"- 1 Jno. 2:19.

Third: The Growth Of The Spirit Of Appeasement And Toleration.

Scarcely had the victory over digression and innovation in the churches been won, and the smoke had begun to clear from the field of battle, until ominous clouds again appeared on the horizon of our religious skies. Latent seeds of age-old heresies began to spring up. They took immediate form in the system of error known as premillennialism. As before, the thing called premillennialism was not itself the real issue. The actual issue lay again in the background and premillen-nialism was made the horse to ride out on again-a symptom of the real trouble. What was it? An attitude toward sectari-anism. Premillennialism is a system of sectarianism and therefore became the rallying ground for a group of sectarian malcontents in the churches. We have allowed an appease-ment party to grow up in our midst, composed of a group of men who are not and have never been in true sympathy and accord with the aim and purpose, spirit and character of churches of Christ. With much determination they endeavor to change the church. They do not want it as it is; but rather than leave it, they conspire to mould it and make it after their will. Their effort was to subsidize it to certain large in-terests and subordinate it, the whole church, to their plans


of aggression and aggrandizement. But the church was alerted in time to be saved from these designing men, and now their names are but hisses and bywords among all who are loyal to the church and lovers of the truth.

Fourth: The Remedy For Sectarian Digressions And Defections.

The need has always been to repair the wall at the point where it was broken down. We do not need a new wall, do not want a new wall, and we are not building a new wall-we propose simply to repair the broken down places in the original wall. Restoration does not call for a new church, nor a denomination of any description. We neither need nor want denominations. We need only and desire only the church. The purpose of restoration has never been to promote a denomination, form a party or formulate a creed. And just as definitely is the work of restoration not a plea for the appeasement of teachers of error or a bid for union with promoters of error. The thing we preach and for which we plead is the unity of all we believe the Bible upon the Bible and the Bible alone. From this position we cannot recede and this vantage ground we shall not surrender. So in pursuing this aim let us hark back to the spirit of the pilgrim crusaders and renew, and ever-renew, our efforts to preserve the church from the sabotage of the Sanballat's and Tobiah's of modern compromise in our very midst.

The accomplishment of this end is of necessity an achieve-ment of unity. While rebuilding the walls and withstand-ing the opposition, an important task of Nehemiah was to keep unity within-among his own forces. The unity within his ranks did not depend upon any compromise or affiliation with the outside forces of Sanballat and the Samari-tans. Had he yielded to their overtures of compromise, even to the extent of meeting them in conference-planned caucuses, it would have amounted to an armistice, and his defenses would have crumbled and disintegrated. Nehemiah firmly refused to parley with them over a conference table. There can be no dallying with innovators and schismatics. Balaam dallied with the messengers of Moab to the point of com-promising his prophetic office, corrupting Israel and ruining himself.

We do not want a pseudo-unity. Nothing short of John seventeen will do the work. Jesus Christ said, "I pray not for these only, but also for all of them that believe on me through their word"-therefore, Christian unity. That is the Lord's unity. I have heard people pray for the prayer of Christ to be answered. "O Lord, answer the prayer of thy son, Jesus Christ," as though we have a better standing at the throne than had Jesus Christ himself. The prayer of Jesus Christ was answered. He prayed that prayer before he died on the cross, before his church was established. He prayed that those who believed the word of the apostles should be one in the belief of that word, in the church to be established. The answer to that prayer-"Christian unity"-does not depend upon what digressive bodies or sectarian denominations are going to do about this or that or anything else. The prayer of Jesus had to do with the unity of those who believed on him through the word of the apostles. Wherever you find a body of people who so believe and do, who are not bound by human creed, order, or organization, there you find the unity for which Christ prayed, in that body of Christians whether large or small. It is not pseudo-unity, a false, counterfeit unity of compromises and affiliations, but of oneness in Jesus Christ, "through their word." Such unity will bring victory over all foes within and without.



The periods of religious history are, as stated, the era of perfection, the era of departure, the era of apostasy, and the era of restoration. The restoration of the church calls for laying down party names, party creeds, party doctrines, party ordinances, and returning to the New Testament church in organization, doctrine, worship, and name. In other words, the right creed, the right names (or nomenclature), the right doctrine, and the right worship, will make the right church, the thing for which we are pleading.

In pursuing these principles to their final conclusions, let us follow the course of history through the meanderings of centuries and observe the effects on the church of these various developments.

First: The Function Of History.

It belongs to history to relate the founding of that reli-gious society beginning in Palestine nineteen centuries ago, known as the church, of which Jesus Christ was the Founder, and to recount effects wrought by the teaching of its Head in successive periods of time.

To a select and chosen company of disciples, under the guidance of twelve apostles inspired for that purpose, he committed the task of expanding his kingdom among men.

The nature of the kingdom of Christ, as set forth in the teaching of the Lord himself, was to be both extensive and intensive in its character. Its extensive nature is set forth in the parable of the Mustard Seed; its intensive nature is seen in the parable of the Leaven. History has classified these influences under several headings.

(1) Missions, or as we would more properly call it, evan-gelization. The gospel is a religion to be propagated. It does not represent the cloistered virtues of hermits and ascetics, cherished and nursed by secret devotees. The divine injunction was to preach the gospel to every creature, according to the commission recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke.

These eras of so-called missionary conquest-gospel evangelization-formed three epochs in the history of the church, as viewed by the general historian: the conversion


of the Jewish nation; the conversion of the Roman Empire; and the conversion of the uncivilized races of the world. The Lord referred to it as "in Jerusalem, in all Judea, and in Samaria and unto the uttermost part of the earth"-Acts

1:8. Paul afterwardsaid, "tothe Jew first andalsotothe Greek"-Rom. 1:16.

(2) Polity, more properly called organization. From the beginning Christians were united in a visible society, the church, with certain offices and officers, and methods of discipline. This organization did not extend beyond the local church. But history relates the sad story of how the organization of the church was changed from the simple arrangement of the New Testament church to the complex and apostate ecclesiastical hierarchy of Rome. The New Testament organization of the congregation was that of elders, deacons and members, but the development of ec-clesiastical organization destroyed the congregational char-acter of the church, and departure was first centered in human organization.

(3) Theology, as the historian writes it, but doctrine in the terms of scripture. Christianity is doctrine. The teaching of its Founder is set forth in authoritative books-the New Testament. To Timothy, Paul said, "These things teach with all authority"-and "hold fast the form of sound words." But as the hierarchy of Rome was an apostasy from the organiza-tion of the New Testament church, the development of human creeds was an apostasy from the doctrine as revealed in its inspired books.

(4) Liturgy, in ecclesiastical parlance, but designated as worship in the pure speech of the New Testament. Christianity created a distinct cultus, a form and pattern of worship peculiar to itself, never known in all the world before. And that such worship might be preserved in all ages to follow, Paul exhorted the Corinthians to "keep the ordinances as I delivered them unto you"-1 Cor. 11: 1-2. But time witnessed wide variations


in the development of liturgies, even to a complete apostasy from the simple worship of the New Testament church.

(5) Charity, a term which the historian uses for the character of life Christianity binds upon its adherents. Christi-anity is a practical system in purpose and in effect. It is more than a creed to be learned and recited. It becomes the source of new life, forming again and moulding anew the lives and hearts of all who accept it. Jesus was referred to as "the Prince of life"-Acts 3:15; and the angel bade Peter to "Go, stand and speak in the temple to all the people the words of this life"-Acts 5:20.

Thus the summation of the historical effects of Christianity in the various phases may be comprehended under five terms: propagation; organization; doctrine; life; and worship.

Second: The Periods Of History.

The first eight centuries fall under the head of ancient history. The second eight centuries bear the designation of medieval history. And remaining centuries form what we know as modern history. In other words, Ancient, Medie-val and Modern history: Ancient, up to 800 A. D., Medieval, up to 1600 A. D., and Modern, up to 1947 A. D. to be pre-cisely exact! The ancient period was represented by the Roman Caesars; the medieval and modern by leaders from Charlemagne to Luther and modern reformers. From the easier and simpler New Testament idea, however, these epochs would simply fall into the period of perfection-the apostolic age; the period of apostasy-the post-apostolic age; the period of restoration-all subsequent periods in which men were attempting to break the bands of a yoke that bound them to eccleciastical authority and accomplish a return to the ancient order of things-the New Testament itself.

The period of perfection, the apostolic age, was ushered in and characterized by the founding of the church and the promulgation of divine revelation through the apostles of Christ in the form of the New Covenant. The Day of Pente-cost of Acts 2 ushered it in. The book of Acts of Apostles records the spread of the gospel and the growth of the church through the preaching of the apostles, and these recorded cases of conversion make the plan of salvation too plain for any thoughtful person to misunderstand. The epistles to the churches, most and memorable of which are Paul's, regulate the practice of the churches and clearly reveal what churches should be and do today.

The period of apostasy began to be introduced by early Judaizers; later by Roman bishops; and the bitter periods of persecution such as the Domitian and Diocletian epochs of history tested the fiber of every person who acknowledged the name of Jesus Christ, or who in any way testified to the worthy claim of the gospel.

In the process of time, and the pressure of lords and prelates of apostasy, ecclesiastical organization supplanted the simple divine arrangement of the New Testament congrega-tion; so-called "legends of apostles" and spurious articles of faith supplanted the books of the New Testament; sprinkling was substituted for baptism; music, masses and images were superimposed upon the people in place of the true ordinances of divine worship revealed in the inspired writings of the apostles, and apostasy became complete. It was taught that the purpose of the apostolic writings was not to create a permanent spiritual literature for the church anyway, that their writings served only the time in which they lived, and that continuous revelation was inherent in the church through the ecclesiastics of each period. Exhortation, such as Jude 3, to contend for "the faith once delivered" meant nothing to a Roman bishop or Italian pontiff who claimed to speak with as much or more authority than Jude.

Through the dark ages we come to the 15th and the 16th centuries to which we assign the rebirth of the human spirit, out of mental bondage into the freedom of will and of thought and of action. It demonstrated that the power that can forge fetters can break them. From 606 A. D. when Boniface III, the first man to have the title of pope placed upon his human head, down to the spiritual revolutions, which history calls reformations, of Huss and Wyclif and Luther, the abomi-nations of Roman Catholicism deluged and cursed the earth. The rise of sacerdotalism and sacramentalism had blinded all men to the simplicity of New Testament worship. The forms, liturgies, pictures, images and emblems, saints and celibacy, vestments and ornaments, mechanical music, purgatory and masses, claims of infallibility and all that goes with the exer-cise of high-handed assumption of human authority and tyrannical power of the most arrogant perverter of the word of God this world has ever known-the pope of Rome-were the order of the day.

Third: The Development Of Papal Power.

The first pope, Boniface III, was titled 606 A. D. In this period there was a perpetual struggle between the pope, the kings and the people. From 1100 to 1600 the awful era called the Dark Ages held sway-four hundred years of abysmal darkness. From 1600 to 1800 the reformers launched a series of mighty movements that sent the pope reeling to his fall and stripped the Roman Catholic Church of much of the power which had enabled it to dominate the kings and kingdoms of the world. Then the boldest move ever made by a man was made by pope Pius IX, when in 1870 he put forth the claim of infallibility and brought forth the most high-handed docu-ment this world has ever known, the Syllabus of Pius IX, and convened the Vatican Council to ratify it. Here was the final desperate effort of the human being who claims to be the only rightful ruler of the universe, to stage a come-back and to put into being an undercurrent in all countries that would, he hoped, eventually restore him to a position of temporal power, unlimited and universal-the sovereign of all men and nations on earth.


(1) The Syllabus of Pius IX.

The syllabus of Pius IX consisted in a series of condemned propositions, drawn from the utterances of the pope, eighty articles, the range of which covered practically every subject that affects the lives of men privately or publicly, socially or spiritually, physically or mentally, politically or religiously. It was the pope's charter of dominion over all civil society. A look into this syllabus, preparatory to some forthcoming exposures, will not be amiss at this time.

The first fourteen articles of the syllabus have to do with the pope's right to control all philosophy and theology.

Number five asserts that divine revelation is subject to continuous and indefinite progress, which assertion amounts to his claim of inspiration, the prerogative to speak for God.

Fifteen condemns every man's freedom to embrace and profess the religion he may in the light of his own reason esteem to be true, and claims the power to require the State not to leave every man free to profess his own religion.

Nineteen claims that the rights of the Church are un-limited and denies the State the right to interfere with any of its activities whatsoever, regardless of their political effect and character. It asserts the right of the Church to employ mercenaries and foreign auxiliaries to force millions of men of a race or a country to submit to the pope, claiming the right to set her priests in any country above the rulers of that nation, and to declare any law of interference with his own schemes null and void. For this reason this syllabus was prohibited, barred from circulation in France by Napoleon III. But the United States of America permits the pope to fasten his octopus of power on the complacent citizens of this unsuspecting nation.

Twenty-two claims the right of requiring all to believe that no pope ever exceeded the bounds of his power and that no ecumenical council ever did so.

Twenty-four claims the right of the Church to employ force.

Twenty-seven claims for the pontiff and the clergy all dominion over temporal affairs.

Forty-five claims the right of the entire direction of public schools.

Fifty-four claims the right to subject all civil rulers to the jurisdiction of the church.

Fifty-five claims the right of perpetuating the union of church and state and to employ force to maintain it.

Fifty-six claims the right to subject the study of philosophy, moral science, and civil law to ecclesiastical authority.

Sixty-two claims the right to require the sacrament of marriage (marriage performed by a Catholic priest by form of the Council of Trent) essential to the marriage contract.

Seventy claims the right to require all to accept the canons of Trent, and to declare all marriages void not solemnized by its forms.

Seventy-three claims the right to annul marriages sol-emnized only by civil contract.

Seventy-seven claims the right to require that the Catholic religion shall be the only religion of the state to the exclusion of all others.

Seventy-eight claims the right to prevent the state from granting freedom of public worship.

Seventy-nine claims the power to require the state not to permit free expression of opinion.

Eighty declares that the Roman pope is against modern progress, civilization, government and freedom, and can neither be reconciled to it nor compromise with it.

(2) The Decrees and Canons.

The Decrees are intended to take the doctrines of the Syllabus respecting the church and state out of the domain of ideas, or religious beliefs, and decree them into the realm of fact. The Chapters would furnish the text for professors and teachers. The Canons would bind the conscience of the individual to them on the pain of anathema.

I submit to you an abridgement of the twenty-one can-ons by numbers:

One to five affirm that the Catholic Church is essential to salvation.

Six to thirteen teach that the Catholic Church must be intolerant, is infallible, and its decisions final; that it is not subject to civil power in any matter, but ruled by bishops possessing legislative, judicial and compulsory power, and that none can be saved outside the Catholic Church as such.

Fourteen to twenty affirm that the pope has all the power; that no civil authority is legitimate that does not have the sanction of the pope; they confound natural and legal rights and put civil law and public opinion on the same level, and condemn both.

Twenty-one anathemas!

Who would not pay a price to be armed with an infallible decision which will at once crush all opposition and put down all adversaries? Face to face with the sole figure of authority, the pope of Rome! While in the past the spirit of Christianity had changed Caesars into patriotic princes, another spirit has changed the pope into a Caesar, claiming all supremacy in things temporal and spiritual. Embedded in these canons, and deep under the whole movement, is the dreadful fact that the Roman Catholic Church is against free government in religion and in civil society, confirmed by and in their denial of the fact that the state is the source of legal rights.


As to legal rights, we are a free and thankful people, living among books, schools, literature, newspapers, free enter-prise, and friends, manifold blessings the source of which is the benign ordinance of God through civil law. The State is not the author of such rights, but is the guardian of them. These natural and legal rights would be trampled down if not surrounded by the firm fence of law. The principles of Catholicism, as set forth in these their own authoritative docu-ments, would strip the State of all moral mission, empty the law of all moral character, and rob society and all the institu-tions of society of all moral and religious freedom. The Sylla-bus and Decrees would transfer to the Catholic priesthood alone the direction of all of the actions of men, social, civil and religious.

The moral and civil mission of the State is written on every page of the Bible, but the mission of a Catholic priest, political or otherwise, on not a single page. Shall we counte-nance a system in our midst, under the guise of a religion or church, the acceptance of which, or by fate its ascendancy to power, would place the affairs of the whole world at the dis-cretion of the Roman pontiff?-sitting in all of his arrogance on the Vatican throne in Rome, Italy?-waiting to rule the world?-and confidently believing that one day he will. With all my heart I pray-God forbid!



In the commendable efforts of various men of the early nineteenth century to restore the Bible order, there were two basic principles to observe: first, the difference between refor-mation and restoration; and second, the basis of scriptural unity.

The result of the Protestant reformation was orthodox de-nominationalism. Swinging away from the intolerable dogmas of Romanism, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and others of the like


spirit, built their protestant foundations on the sands of de-nominational creeds rather than on the rock of New Testament truth-and their foundations shifted with the crawling sands upon which they were built. Their reformations failed, falling far short of their original purpose.

A few generations later it fell to such intellects as Barton

W. Stone, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, the Scotts and the Creaths, and a legion like them, to launch the mighty plea to abandon party names, party creeds, party organizations, and upon the right creed, the right name, the right doctrine, the right worship, such as taught in the New Testament itself, to restore the primitive apostolic church, the which could be neither Catholic nor Protestant, but scriptural, and therefore divine. There is no other basis of Christian unity-scriptural unity. And there is no other way to establish the identity of the primitive apostolic church. The wrong creed, the wrong doctrine, the wrong worship, the wrong organization and the wrong name could not possibly result in the right church. But the right creed, the right doctrine, the right worship, the right organization and the right name, for a like reason, can-not be the wrong church.

Friends of Christ, on this platform we shall stand un-shaken and unrelenting. These principles we shall press in the successive services of this meeting. So, in conclusion now, if there are alien friends here this afternoon, as without doubt in scores there must be in this great gathering, we call upon you in the spirit of the gospel invitation to come and stand with us upon the Bible and the Bible alone and join us in the promulgation of these principles. The invitation is yours, with our prayer that you may accept it now, as the song is sung.



Before God we stand to resume the study of things per-taining to that system of religion revealed in the word of God, of things that through the centuries have been detrimental to it, of developments that relate to the history of the church, of the growth of ecclesiastical systems of error, of a return to the New Testament church, and the repudiation of all human organization, doctrine and dogma.

If the subject matter tonight appears to be more historical than biblical, I would remind you that Christianity is historical. The beginning of the church, its growth, its struggles and its triumphs are all matters of record, and that is history. The Bible is the record of divine history and is therefore the only inspired history.

Some of the terms necessary to use in the discussion of the multiplicity of these human organizations and doctrines, are unbiblical terminology and we use them only in their current meaning as applied in common usage and not as Bible phraseology.

As we discuss the history of the church it will be neces-sary to point out the many deviations from the word of God as well as the many examples of fidelity to it, in order that the lines of cleavage may be properly drawn. These dis-cussions concern the most monstrous system of error this world has ever known-the Roman Catholic Church.

These principles therefore affect the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, and we are pledged to discuss them in the spirit of investigation and in the light of God's word.

I now read to you the basic text for tonight: "I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to them-selves teachers having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." Paul to Timothy, 2 Tim. 4:1-4.

This exhortation of Paul to Timothy foretells departures from the truth in the history of the church. As pointed out in a previous discourse of this series, these departures begin with an attitude toward the truth, toward divine authority, toward apostolic teaching. First, the attitude toward the truth-"they will not endure sound doctrine." Second, their conduct toward the truth-"heap to themselves teachers." Third, the rejection of the truth-"shall turn away their ears from the truth." Fourth, complete apostasy-"turned unto fables." Thus the apostle Paul sets forth the steps of departure, the stages of apostasy from the gospel of Christ. Men may first hear the truth and not endure it; they may then engage compromising teachers who have not actually reached the point of turning their ears away from it, but the first two conditions certainly lead to the third, and the third stage leads to the final rejection of the truth in turning altogether to the fables of human authority in religion.

Reference was made in another address to "the church lost and found." There are five periods of church history. First, the period of perfection-the New Testament age. Second, the period of departure-beginning with the Juda-izers in the New Testament church, existing later in multiple forms of error which grew out of the assertion of human authority in organization, doctrine and worship, immediately following the apostolic age. Third, the period of complete apostasy-which followed Domitian and Diocletian persecu-tions, developed into the Holy Roman Empire, and later the


Roman Catholic Church. Fourth, the period of reformation -the efforts of noble men such as Wyclif and Luther, to re-form existing conditions, to break the shackles of Rome and exercise the freedom which belongs to every man to follow the Bible and the Bible alone as his guide in faith and con-duct. Fifth, the period of restoration-when such men as Stone and Campbell renounced denominational creeds and announced the plea to "speak where the Bible speaks" and to be "silent where the Bible is silent." Thus we have the periods of perfection, departure, apostasy, reformation and restoration, covering the periods of church history.



There is a historical distinction between the "Holy Ro-man Empire" and the "Roman Catholic Church." To show the origin of the first and the emergence of the latter, let us study the development from the days of Rome's Caesars until the rise of the papacy.

First: The Background Of History.

The political condition of the world and the influence of the Jewish state on society when Christianity appeared, form the background of what is called "church history."

1. The old and new idea. The conception of the kingdom of God from the old idea of nationalism rather than the new religion of the gospel was at the root of the Roman error. Before Christ the kingdom existed in a rudimentary national form. Romanism was a political corruption of that Old Testament idea. Roman Catholicism is that same old Roman idea in religious form. Modern premillennialism is that same old Roman idea in religious form. Modern premillennialism proposes a return to the idea of nationalism in the theory of a future earthly

kingdom, in the theory that Christ will at his coming smite and destroy all human civil government, establish by the might of destruction his own government on earth, and that no government will exist on this earth thereafter than his own, in which he shall rule the whole world, in universal sway of power by "the rod of iron," and thus coerce into submission and obedience the unwilling subjects of this supposed earthly government of Jesus Christ. Premillenialism therefore is what may very properly be termed Protestant Romanism in contrast with Catholic Romanism.

2. The state of civilization.

When the Christian religion had its origin the Jews were a subject nation. The Roman Empire was in full glory. Greek culture was amalgamated with its influence and church history came under Roman sway.

There was a three-fold influence exerted in the midst of the world conditions. First, the philosophy, science and culture of the Greeks; second, the law and civil polity of the Romans; third, the religious nationalism of the Jews- better known as Judaism.

The founding of the church being surrounded by all of these influences and subjected to these conditions, developed in a four-fold order. First, the mission of John the Baptist, second, the ministry of Jesus the Christ; third, the commis-sioning of the apostles of Christ; fourth, the establishment of the church of Christ on Pentecost.

This is a brief sketch of the background of history in the beginning of the kingdom of Christ on the earth.

Second: The Outline Of History.

The lines of history are drawn around three divisions and break into distinct sections.

1. Ancient history-to 800 A. D.

It was the period of the apostolic age when the church was regarded as a Jewish sect within the Roman empire, under the ban of Roman laws and enduring persecution.


It was an epoch marked by state religion, by its growth into the Roman episcopacy, the metropolitan bishops and the Italian pope-in short the Old Catholic church, as dis-tinguished from the Roman Catholic church of later date, merged into being.

The dominant personalities of this period were Gregory, Boniface and Charlemagne. It was preluded by rapid de-partures in the church dating from the apostolic age to the edict of Constantine, culminating into the complete apostasy of succeeding periods.

2. Medieval history-to 1600 A. D.

This was a period of imperial nationality. The Jews who had been kept apart by a religion were now dispersed all over the world. Emperors who had opposed Christianity now united the empire into a national church, with a firm organization, giving to Christianity its martyrs, its heroes and its history.

This period was marked by an alliance of the civil and the ecclesiastical, giving rise to sacerdotalism and sacramentalism which merged into the visible Catholic church.

The outline of these developments may be epitomized as follows:

(a) The persecutions under Nero, Domitian and Dio-cletian-from A. D. 64.

(b) The recognition of Christianity by Constantine -A. D. 313.

(c) The seat of New Rome-Constantinople, A. D. 326.

(d) The division of the Eastern and Western Empires-

A. D. 364-376.

(e) The development into the Holy Roman Empire.

It was during this period that the abominations of the Roman Catholic church deluged the earth, causing a mighty surge in society that garnered in momentum until it broke into the tidal wave of a reformation that brought light out of darkness and portended the dawn of the new day of religious freedom and the restoration of the apostolic church.

3. Modern history-to 1900 A. D.

From the days of Constantine until far down into the middle ages, through eighteen centuries of time, the em-pire was recognized conjointly with the papacy, the head and the center of what the world -called Christianity, exer-cising influence over the minds of men that a mere material strength could not command. No patriarch or prelate had more than an honorary supremacy as head of the church-for the head was the emperor himself. The system germinated the idea of a single Roman people throughout the whole world, of making all men Roman, that both civilization and Christianity might be conterminous with the Roman empire. So to be a Roman was to be a Christian and to be a Christian was to be a Roman.



The existence and influence of the Holy Roman Empire had revolved around several colossal misconceptions.

(1) The belief that the dominion of Rome was universal.

It was said that "when Rome, the head of the world, shall have fallen, who can doubt that the end is come of all human things, aye, of the earth itself."

(2) The belief in the sanctity of the emperor.

There had been the hatred of kings through political struggle. But a new and strange belief marked the emperor off from mere kings and from all other sovereigns. He was not called by the title king which had fermented rivalry and hatred. He was emperor-possessing an awful impersonation, a pre-eminence almost supernatural, the right of legislation


vested in him alone, and the decrees of the people, senate and magistrate were replaced by emperial constitutions. His inter-position was invoked in trials and to swear by his head was the most solemn oath. His effigy was sacred, even on a coin. This worship of the emperor was common to the whole Roman world, and was the usual test of a Christian on trial.

(3) Belief that the Roman empire was divine.

This idea was prevalent in the fifth century, emanating from the false interpretation of prophecy, that the fourth kingdom would last to the end of time, and they therefore refused to believe in the dissolution of the Roman empire which was in process before their eyes.

The extinction of Old Rome came in 476 A. D. by Odo-acer, contrary to the prevailing misconceptions of Rome eternal, and the West no longer had an emperor of its own.

(4) The rise of the papacy.

Odoacer assumed the title of king, effecting a reunion of the West and the East, thus avoiding legal extinction of the western kingdom by a merging of the two, nor did it destroy the "empire" idea, but rather resulted in the rise of Latin Christianity and in the establishment of papal Rome- the rule of the popes. The severed limbs of the empire began to forget by degrees the original unity, gradually breaking down the traditions of old society in the growing ignorance of the sixth to the eighth centuries, until the empire fell to pieces.

It was then that the Catholic Church asserted its authority as the common head of all men. Such a united authority required a center, and in the thoughts of all men, Rome was the center-so the Roman empire still existed in the minds of the multitudes as a weakened and suspended power-but not destroyed.

The popes had been the emperors' subjects, but now they asserted the predominance, and the controversies between


the people and the emperors began to rage. These contro-versies centered on several salient points.

1. The Christian state-the contention that the spiritual head of Christendom could not dispense with the temporal head.

The idea rapidly prevailed that Roman and Christian were two names for the same thing, and there was formed a new combination of religion and state-designed to gather all men into its bosom exactly as the universal sway of the Caesars had controlled the innumerable kingdoms and re-publics before it. Men already disposed to believe the empire to be eternal, under the influence of this movement, came to believe that the church and the empire were equally eternal. So, the union of a world-church with a world-state came in to being, and with it-the Roman Catholic Church, the visible church, the national church, the universal church, held to-gether by emperial power.

1. The king and emperor. The king was not a universal sovereign, because there were many kings, but there was only one emperor, the lord of the civilized world, autocrat of Christendom. Between the kings and the emperor the con-troversies raged on.

2. The pope and the emperor. Under the emblem of soul and body the pope and the emperor played their roles, the pope being the soul (spiritual), and the emperor being the body (temporal), so the Holy Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Church became one. As divine and spiritual, the pope was its head; as human and temporal, the emperor was its head. So it matters little whether the pope be called a spiritual emperor or the emperor be called a secular pope.

But complete accord between papal and emperial powers could not be maintained since the pope claimed to be vicar of God and sole representative of Deity on earth, claiming the authority over all civil governments, and requiring


obedience of all civil rulers, exalting his dignity above all. So Boniface VIII in A. D. 1300 seated himself on the throne of Constantine and declared: "I am Caesar; I am emperor."

So the Holy Roman Empire was in principle the restor-ation of the old Roman Empire, one was pagan and the other was papal, but alike in character, aim and purpose. The em-peror assumed the role of propagating the Roman religion by the use of the carnal sword.

Thus the place of the pope and the emperor was in a con-stantly changing state from the fifth to the fifteenth cen-turies, as rivalry shifted the ascendancy from one to the other. The emperor contended that divine providence ap-pointed the Roman empire to control schism in the church. The pope in turn claimed the right of overseeing and even cancelling the election of an emperor.

(5) The growth of the papacy.

As kings and emperors "come and go," the pope is ever watchful and alert to seize opportunity for power. The em-peror mistrusted the pope and beheld in the pope a source of sedition, dangerous to himself, because an emperor alienated from the church was weakened in power and influence over his emotional subjects. As time went on through re-ligious feeling revolution was fostered, and the power shifted from imperial to papal. Kings were crowned by popes, and finally the crown became so sacred as not to be recognized unless conferred by the supreme pontiff, the pope, or in any other city than the august Roman capitol. Thus kings and people were put at the mercy of the popes of Rome.

The rivalry between the popes and the emperors continued until the struggle for chief place in Christendom burst into revolution-the impulse of the controversy gave birth to the Crusades, a religious war, in which the pope was leader, to exalt the papacy to a place of rule over all the kings of the earth.

(6) The "Great Interregnum."

This was a period when there was no pope on the papal throne. The German papal kingdom had broken down be-neath the weight of the Roman empire. The verdict of the centuries declares, first, that the holy Roman empire was too wicked to be holy, too Teutonic to be Roman, and too weak to be an empire; and second, that the holy Roman Catholic church was not holy, was not Roman, was not Catholic and is not and never was, the church.

(7) The dawn of the reformation.

Until men can look forward they must look back. It is not possible to enter the feelings by which relics of antiquity were regarded by the people of the Middle Ages as the only important thing. They lived upon the memories of the de-parted glory of Rome.

To the 15th and 16th centuries is assigned the rebirth of the human spirit. It was marked by (a) the revival of learn-ing-the renaissance; (b) the growing spirit of freedom;

(c) the introduction of politics. Scholastic philosophy, edu-cation, and art began to grow. The dominant fallacies of the Roman church began to be assailed; legislation taking sides in political theories took form. Thus the power to forge fetters can break them and release people of all lands and races from shackles that bind them.

The causes of the reformation may be itemized as follows:

1. Revolt of the laity against clergy. 2. Opposition to luxury of prelates and abuses of the ecclesiastical system. 3. Efforts to return to primitive forms of doctrine against the human dogmatism of papal Rome. 4. Assertion of individuality in true religious freedom.

The surge of revolution was felt in all Europe, led by the great reformer of the sixteenth century, Martin Luther, reach-ing its crescendo in the historic utterances of Luther at the Diet of Worms and eventually culminating in the peace of


Westphalia, the terms of which may be summarized in the general declaration that all Lutherans and Calvinists were declared free from all jurisdiction of the pope or any Catholic prelate. The last link that bound Germany to Rome snapped. The last principle by which the empire existed was abandoned. The reformers were accorded full share in civil rights, which formerly only those in communion had been granted. It was the end of Roman Catholic rule over the benighted people of the dark medieval ages.

(8) The fall of the papal empire.

No power of force had ever been based on foundations more sure and deep than Rome had laid in centuries of conquest and dominion. But there is a power greater than force, and when it stirs in the hearts of men, force crumbles before it, leaving the ruins of monarchies behind it. In the contest between Napoleon of France and the pope of Rome, the pope marshalled the armed forces of his Vatican state to uphold his civil power over men and monarchies. But when the military power of the conquering city ended in ignoble defeat-when Italy, his last surviving temporal domain was lost to the papacy-the pope went into voluntary exile within the Vatican walls, in self-imposed imprisonment, a self-made martyr, to seek to regain through the sympathy of the Catholic world his forfeited throne and out of death to raise up a restored temporal power.

Both the papacy and the empire arose in an age when the human spirit was prostrated before authority and tra-dition, when the exercise of private judgment and conscience was impossible to most men and sinful to all men. But in 1806 the papal empire died and was buried and "finis" was written to the history of the "Holy Roman Empire."

(9) The relics of Rome.

As the years passed, time left behind in mists of the past the Roman empire and it was hard to believe that men had seen it and had borne their part in its government. As the world closed one page of history it paused to wonder and conjecture what the next would unfold. Rome, whence the Caesars ruled; Rome, where the "chief of apostles" in a name greater than Caesars, exercised a power stronger than the sword, has joined the pale nations of the past. It took centuries to break up that vast medieval society with its doctrines of the demons of dark ages, but it was done. Today nowhere known to us does a state claim the duty of propagating and protecting an arbitrary form of religion or faith, to bind with fetters the human conscience. We now become citizens with the right to govern, along with the duty to obey, based on the love of human freedom and sense of individual responsi-bility in the recognition of the sacredness and supremacy of spiritual life, attained only in the relation to God which obedience alone to his inspired, inerrant and infallible word can establish and maintain.



As the facts crop out it becomes more and more evident that the aim of the papacy was never to make men and women, as such, godly and peaceable but rather to bring kingdoms and monarchies, rulers as rulers, legislatures as legislatures, nations as nations, into subjection to the pope.

(1) The Vatican meeting.

It was for that purpose that pope Pius IX, in 1864, held in the Vatican a meeting of the Congregation of Rites-a group of eighteen or twenty cardinals and a few prelates which constituted the Roman Curia.

The threefold purpose of the meeting was, first, to bind additions in Catholic creed without the formal sanction of a general council; second, to promote the personal inspira-tion and infallibility of the pope; third, to prepare the way for the eighty-article syllabus of Pius IX.


(2) The encyclical. A papal encyclical is an ex cathedra utterance of the pope -when he speaks from the papal chair, not as a teacher or statesman, but as supreme pontiff. Every sentence becomes law. But it is for the pope himself alone to decide when and on what subjects, his utterances are ex cathedra: that is, "out of the chair." That being true the ex cathedra argu-ment is no guarantee of infallibility and offers no safeguard against his fallibility-he alone being the judge. In the encyclical issued in connection with the Vatican meeting of the cardinals and prelates-the Congregation of

Rites-the pope pronounced a series of political condemnations, setting forth the ruin of modern society in four tokens.

The first token of ruin was the setting aside by society of the force which the church claimed the right to exercise.

The second token of ruin was that the state had adopted the policy of granting liberty of worship as the personal right of every man.

The third token of ruin was the hostility of the public to Catholic secret religious orders which Catholics claimed were founded by the inspiration of God.

The fourth token of ruin was the belief that civil law has the right and power to grant parents the control of their children, whereas the pope claimed that Catholic priests should be granted right and power to take children out of the hands of their parents. So the world was sick! And society was ruined! Why? Because it had been emancipated from the supreme tribunal of the papal church-from the power of the pope of Rome! That was the encyclical-the curious document of the pope, issued as an introduction to the syllabus of Pius IX, the aim of which was the re-establishment of the Holy Roman Empire with an Italian head.

(3) The background of the syllabus.

The pope's temporal power had vanished, and beyond his disappearing dominions he could hear rumblings of re-bellion against his spiritual power. In Switzerland the Jesuits had been defeated in a provoked war. Mexico had passed into the Protestant influence of the U. S. A. Portugal was plagued with revolt; Ireland's Catholic population had been weakened and dispersed by famine; France had driven away her Catholic king; the emperor of Austria, forced to abdicate, called on Russia for aid; Spain and her Queen were involved in insurrections and scandals; the sovereigns of Bavaria, Tus-cany and Naples had been compelled to lay down their crowns; only two Roman Catholic countries were thriving- Belgium; who had a Protestant king, and Piedmont who had opened the Alps to religious liberty!

On the other side, Russia and England, both enemies of the pope, were stable and expanding; Prussia was advancing to first place in Germany; Holland, Denmark and Sweden held out against the pope to their own way; the U. S. A. was growing apace.

All of this was in the sweep of the storm moving slowly but with potential hurricane proportions against the pope's already waning power. He had to do something, and he did -something the whole world should know about, in the form of a document all men everywhere should read-the syllabus of Pius IX.

I submit here the full English text of that ominous doc-ument-the syllabus of Pius IX-as translated from the Latin and published by that eminent scholar, Philip Schaff, president of the revision committee of our New Testament, taken from a joint publication of the Hon. William E. Gladstone, emi-nent lawyer and member of Parliament in England; and Philip Schaff, in their book entitled "The Vatican Decrees And History Of The Vatican Council," published by Harper & Brothers, New York, in 1875.

This papal "syllabus of errors" was issued by the sole authority of pope Pius IX, December 8, 1864, was later ratified and accepted, and now regarded, as infallible and irreformable.


It is a negative statement wholly, consisting in a series of condemned articles. It therefore enjoins the opposite of what it condemns as errors. It should be remembered, in reading this document, that each article is a condemned proposition by the pope and the council.

Under the first two sections of the syllabus it will be observed that the pope is arguing a self-made case against pantheism and rationalism, which are not issues between Catholics and various other religious bodies. But the pope would have it appear that he himself is the sole custodian of faith and truth against atheism and philosophy, and that he alone has the authority and right to define morals, philosophy or science, and that he himself is the sole interpreter thereof, in all of these realms as well as religion.

With section three the real threat that the Roman Catholic church poses to all the world of freedom, both civil and re-ligious, will begin to appear, and its articles will advance in its statements until cold chills will grip your anatomy, and hot flashes will curdle your blood.

And be not deceived by section jour on Socialism, Com-munism, and Secret Societies. This was an advance move on the part of the pope toward the control of all social, civil and political society back in 1864-1870. It is well known to all who have inside information on these matters that Roman Catholi-cism is itself a system of communism-dreadful communism- and Catholic prelates hate socialism and communism only as competitive systems to Catholic Communism. As for a pope of Rome issuing a syllabus against secret orders and societies- except for the seriousness of it-that provokes hilarity. Think of the secret societies and orders of Roman Catholicism, and then ponder the condemnation of a Catholic pope of other societies! It is significant that the article specifies Bible So-cieties. The pope hates the American Bible Society and The Gideons (an organization that puts Bibles in hotel rooms) and issues a syllabus against all such. The Knights Of Columbus have the sanction of the pope, but Bible Societies have an an-athema !

(4) The articles of the syllabus.

Remember, then, that the eighty articles of this syllabus are negative statements by the pope, the opposite of each affirmed by him, and therefore before each article should be inserted: IT IS AN ERROR AND CONDEMNED THAT:

With this in mind, here it is:

The Syllabus of the principal errors of our time, which are stigmatized in the Constitorial Allocutions, Encyclicals, and other Apostolical Letters of our Most Holy Father, Pope Pius IX.


1. There exists no supreme, most wise, and most provident divine being distinct from the universe, and God is none other than nature, and is therefore subject to change. In effect, God is produced in man and in the world, and all things are God, and have the very substance of God. God is therefore one and the same thing with the world, and thence spirit is the same thing with matter, neces-sity with liberty, true with false, good with evil, justice with injustice.

2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied.

3. Human reason, without any regard to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, of good and evil; it is its own law to itself, and suffices by its natural force to secure the welfare of men and of nations.

4. All the truths of religion are derived from the native strength of human reason; whence reason is the master rule by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind.

5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and, therefore, subject to con-tinual and indefinite progress of human reason.

6. Christian faith contradicts human reason, and divine revelation not only does not benefit, but even injures the perfection of man.

7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and narrated in the Sacred Scriptures are the fictions of poets; and the mysteries of the Christian faith are the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of both Testaments there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is himself a mythical fiction.



1. As human reason is placed on a level with religion, so theo-logical matters must be treated in the same manner as philosophical ones.

2. All the dogmas of Christian religion are, without exception, the object of scientific knowledge or philosophy, and human reason, instructed solely by history, is able by its own natural strength and principles, to arrive at the true knowledge of even the most abstruse dogmas: provided such dogmas be proposed as subject-matter for human reason.

3. As the philosopher is one thing, and philosophy is another, so it is the right and duty of the philosopher to submit to the auth-ority which he shall have recognized as true; but philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to any authority.

4. The church not only ought never to animadvert upon philos-ophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving to philosophy, the care of their correction.

5. The decrees of the Apostolic See and the Roman Congregations fetter the free progress of science.

6. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of the age and progress of science.

7. Philosophy must be treated of without any account being taken of supernatural revelation.


1. Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he shall believe true, guided by the light of reason.

2. Men may in any religion find the way of eternal salvation, and obtain eternal salvation.

3. We may entertain at least a well-founded hope for the eternal salvation of all those who are in no manner in the true Church of Christ.

4. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true religion, in which it is possible to be equally pleasing to God as in the Catholic Church.


Pests of this description are frequently rebuked in the severest terms in the Encyc. Qui pluribus, Nov. 9, 1846; Alloc. Quibus quan-tisque, April 20, 1849; Encyc. Noscitus et Nobiscum, Dec. 18, 1849; Alloc. Singulari quadam, Dec. 9, 1854; Encyc. Quanto conficiamur moerore, Aug. 10, 1863.


1. The Church is not a true, and perfect, and entirely free society, nor does she enjoy peculiar and perpetual rights conferred upon her by her Divine Founder, but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights and limits with which the Church may exercise authority.

2. The ecclesiastical power must not exercise its authority with-out the permission and assent of the civil government.

3. The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion.

4. The obligation which binds Catholic teachers and authors ap-plies only to those things which are proposed for universal belief as dogmas of faith, by the infallible judgment of the Church.

5. The Roman Pontiffs and oecumenical Councils have exceeded the limits of their power, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even committed errors in defining matters of faith and morals.

6. The Church has not the power of availing herself of force, or any direct or indirect temporal power.

7. In addition to the authority inherent in the Episcopate, a further and temporal power is granted to it by the civil authority, either expressly or tacitly, which power is on that account also re-vocable by the civil authority whenever it pleases.

8. The Church has not the innate and legitimate right of acqui-sition and possession.

9. The ministers of the Church, and the Roman Pontiff, ought to be absolutely excluded from all charge and dominion over temporal affairs.

10. Bishops have not the right of promulgating even their apos-tolical letters, without the permission of the government.

11. Dispensations granted by the Roman Pontiff must be considered null, unless they have been asked for by the civil government.

12. The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons de-rives its origin from civil law.

13. Ecclesiastical courts for temporal causes, of the clergy, whether civil or criminal, ought by all means to be abolished, either without the concurrence and against the protest of the Holy See.

14. The personal immunity exonerating the clergy from military service may be abolished, without violation either of natural right or of equity. Its abolition is called for by civil progress, especially in a community constituted upon principles of liberal government.

15. It does not appertain exclusively to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by any right, proper and inherent, to direct the teaching of theo-logical subjects:


1. The teaching of those who compare the sovereign Pontiff to a free sovereign acting in the universal Church is a doctrine which prevailed in the middle ages.

2. There would be no obstacle to the sentence of a general council, or the act of all the universal peoples, transferring the pontifical sovereignty from the Bishop and City of Rome to some other bishopric and some other city.

3. The definition of a national council does not admit of any subsequent discussion, and the civil power can regard as settled an affair decided by such national council.

4. National churches can be established, after being withdrawn and plainly separated from the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

5. Roman Pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, con-tributed to the division of the Church into eastern and western.


1. The commonwealth is the origin and source of all rights, and possesses rights which are not circumscribed by any limits.

2. The teaching of the Catholic Church is opposed to the well-being and interests of society.

3. The civil power, even when exercised by an unbelieving sover-eign, possesses an indirect and negative power over all religious affairs. It therefore possesses not only the right called that of exequatur, but that of the (so-called) appellatlo ab abnsu.

4. In the case of conflicting laws between the two powers, the civil law ought to prevail.

5. The civil power has a right to break, and to declare and render null, the conventions (commonly called Concordats) concluded with the Apostolic See, relative to the use of rights appertaining to the ecclesiastical immunity, without the consent of the Holy See, and even contrary to its protest.

6. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality, and spiritual government. Hence it has control over the instructions for the guidance of consciences issued, con-formably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it possesses power to decree, in the matter of administering the divine sacraments, as to the dispositions necessary for their reception.

7. The entire direction of public schools, in which the youth of Christian states are educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and must appertain to the civil Power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline

of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the making of degrees, or the choice and approval of the teachers.

1. Much more, even in clerical seminaries, the method of study to be adopted is subject to the civil authority.

2. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to the children of all classes, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophy, and for conducting the education of the young, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, government, and interference, and should be fully subject to the civil and political power, in conformity with the will of rulers and the prevalent opinions of the age.

3. This system of instructing youth, which consists in separating it from the Catholic faith and from the power of the Church, and in teaching exclusively, or at least primarily, the knowledge of natural things and the earthly ends of social life alone, may be approved by Catholics.

4. The civil power has the right to prevent ministers of religion, and the faithful, from communicating freely and mutually with each other, and with the Roman Pontiff.

5. The secular authority possesses, as inherent in itself, the right of presenting bishops, and may require of them that they take possession of their dioceses before having received canonical institu-tion and the apostolic letters from the Holy See.

6. And, further, the secular government has the right of deposing bishops from their pastoral functions, and it is not bound to obey the Roman Pontiff in those things which relate to episcopal sees and the institution of bishops.

7. The government has of itself the right to alter the age pre-scribed by the Church for the religious profession, both of men and women; and it may enjoin upon all religious establishments to admit no person to take solemn vows without its permission.

8. The laws for the protection of religious establishments, and securing their rights and duties, ought to be abolished: nay, more, the civil government may lend its assistance to all who desire to quit the religious life they have undertaken, and break their vows. The government may also suppress religious orders, collegiate churches, and simple benefices, even those belonging to private patronage, and submit their goods and revenues to the administration and disposal of the civil power.

9. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church, in litigated questions of jurisdiction.


55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.


1. Moral laws do not stand in need of divine sanction, and there is no necessity that human laws should be conformable to the laws of nature, and receive their sanction from God.

2. Knowledge of philosophical things and morals, and also civil laws, may and must depart from divine and ecclesiastical authority.

5S. No other forces are to be recognized than those which reside in matter; and all moral teaching and moral excellence ought to be made to consist in the accumulation and increase of riches by every possible means, and in the enjoyment of pleasure.

1. Right consists in the material fact, and all human duties are but vain words, and all human acts have the force of right.

2. Authority is nothing else but the result of numerical superiority and material force.

3. An unjust act, being successful, inflicts no injury upon the sanctity of right.

4. The principle of non-intervention, as it is called, ought to be proclaimed and adhered to.

5. It is allowable to refuse obedience to legitimate princes: nay, more, to rise in insurrection against them.

6. The violation of a solemn oath, even every wicked and fla-gitious action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only not blameable, but quite lawful, and worthy of the highest praise, when done for and love of country.


1. It can not be by any means tolerated, to maintain that Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.

2. The sacrament of marriage is only an adjunct of the contract, and separable from it, and the sacrament itself consists in the nuptial benediction alone.

3. By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many cases divorce, properly so called, may be pronounced by the civil authority.

4. The Church has not the power of laying down what are diri-ment impediments to marriage. The civil authority does possess such a power, and can do away with existing impediments to marriage.

5. The Church only commenced in later ages to bring in diriment impediments, and then availing herself of a right not her own, but borrowed from the civil power.

6. The canons of the Council of Trent,which pronounce censure of anathema against those who deny to the Church the right of laying down what are diriment impediments, either are not dogmatic, or must be understood as referring only to such borrowed power.

7. The form of solemnizing marriage prescribed by the said Council, under penalty of nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law has appointed another form, and where it decrees that this new form shall effectuate a valid marriage.

8. Boniface VIII. is the first who declared that the vow of chastity pronounced at ordination annuls nuptials.

9. A merely civil contract may, among Christians, constitute a true marriage; and it is false, either that the marriage contract between Christians is always a sacrament, or that the contract is null if the sacrament be excluded.

10. Matrimonial causes and espousals belong by their very nature to civil jurisdiction.


1. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are not agreed upon the compatibility of the temporal with the spiritual power.

2. The abolition of the temporal power, of which the Apostolic See is possessed, would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church.


78. In the present day, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion shall be held as the only religion of the State, to the ex-clusion of all other modes of worship.

1. Whence it has been wisely provided by law, in some countries called Catholic, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own worship.

2. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every mode of wor-ship, and the full power given to all of overtly and publicly mani-festing their opinions and their ideas, of all kinds whatsoever, con-duce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to the propagation of the pest of indifferentism.

3. The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself to, and agree with, progress, liberalism, and civilization as lately introduced.

We here submit a summary of the points assumed as to the "disabilities of the state" on one hand, and the "rights and powers of the church" (meaning the Roman Catholic


church, of course) as defined by the pope of Rome himself in this amazing document. The most concise analysis of the syllabus I have read is by William Arthur, of England, in his book, The Pope, The Kings And The People. Iwant to read it to you.

First: Disabilities Of The State.

1. The state has not the right to leave every man free to profess and embrace whatever religion he shall deem true. (15)

2. It has not the right to define the rights of the Church, nor to define the limits within which she is to exercise those rights. (19)

3. It has not the right to enact that the ecclesiastical power shall require the permission of the civil power in order to the exercise of its authority. (20)

4. It has not the right to treat as an excess of power, or as usurping the rights of princes, anything that the Roman pontiffs or ecumenical councils have done. (23)

5. It has not the right to deny to the church the use of force, or to deny to her the possession of either a direct or an indirect temporal power. (24)

6. It has not the right to revoke any temporal power found in the possession of bishops as if it had been granted to them by the state. (25)

7. It has not the right to exclude the pontiff or clergy from all dominion over temporal affairs. (27)

8. It has not the right to prevent bishops from publish-ing the Letters Apostolic of the pope, without its sanction.


1. It has not the right of treating the immunity of the church, and of ecclesiastical persons, as if it were a privi-lege arising out of civil law. (30)

2. It has not the right, without consent of the pope, of abolishing ecclesiastical courts for temporal causes, whether civil or criminal, to which the clergy are parties. (31)

3. It has not the right of abolishing the personal im-munity of the clergy and students for the priesthood from military service. (32)

4. It has not the right to adopt the conclusions of a national church council, unless confirmed by the pope. (36)

5. It has not the right of establishing a national church separate from the pope. (37)

6. It has not the right of asserting itself to be the fountain of all rights; or of asserting a jurisdiction not limited by any other jurisdiction, save that of the pope. (41)

7. It has not the right even of an indirect or negative power over "religious affairs." (41)

8. It has not the right of allowing an appeal from an ecclesiastical court to a civil one. (42)

9. It has not the right of asserting the supremacy of its own laws when they come in conflict with ecclesiastical law. (43)

10. It has not the right of rescinding or annulling con-cordats or grants of immunity agreed upon by the pope, with his consent. (43)

11. It has not the right to interfere in "matters pertaining to" religion, morals, or spiritual government. (44)

12. It has not the right to judge any instructions which may be issued by pastors of the church for the guidance of consciences. (44)

13. It has not the right to the entire direction of public schools. (45)

14. It has not the right of requiring that the plan of studies in clerical seminaries shall be submitted to it. (46)


1. It has not the right to prevent bishops, or to depose them, or to found sees. (50-51)

2. It has not the right to interfere with the taking of monastic vows by its subjects of either sex, or to fix any limit to the age at which it may be done. (52)

3. It has not the right to assist subjects who wish to abandon monasteries or convents. (53)

4. It has not the right to abolish monasteries or con-vents. (54)

5. It has not the right of determining questions of jurisdiction as between itself and the ecclesiastical authority.


28. It has not the right to separate itself from the church.


1. It has not the right to provide for the study of philosophy, or moral science, or civil law, eluding the ec-clesiastical authority. (57)

2. It has not the right to declare the marriage contract separable from the sacrament of marriage. (66)

3. It has not the right to sanction divorce in any case. (67)

4. It has not the right to prevent the church from setting up impediments which invalidate marriage. It has no right to set up such impediments itself. It has no right to abolish such impediments already existing. (67)

5. It has not the right to uphold any marriage solem-nized otherwise than according to the form prescribed by the Council of Trent, even if solemnized according to a form sanctioned by the civil law. (71)

6. It has not the right to recognize marriage as valid, unless the sacrament is included. (73)

7. It has not the right to declare that matrimonial causes, or those arising out of betrothals, belong by their nature to the civil jurisdiction. (74)

Second: The Rights Of The Church.

1. She has the right to interfere with the study of philos-ophy, and it it not her duty to tolerate errors in it, or to leave it to correct itself. (11)

2. She has the right to require the state not to leave every man free to profess his own religion. (15)

3. She has the right to be perfectly free. She has the right to define her own rights, and to define the limits within which they are to be exercised. (19)

4. She has the right to exercise her power without the permission or consent of the state. (20)

5. She has the right to bind Catholic teachers and authors, even in matters additional to those which may have been decreed, as articles of belief binding on all. (22)

6. She has the right of requiring it to be believed by all that no pope ever exceeded the bounds of his power; also that no ecumenical council ever did so, and further, that neither the one nor the other ever usurped the rights of princes. (23)

7. She has the right to employ force. (24)

8. She has the right to maintain that whatever temporal power is found in the hands of a bishop, is not beyond what is inherent in his office, and has not come from the state, and therefore is not liable to be resumed by it. (25)

9. She has the right to claim dominion in temporal things for the clergy and the pope. (27)

10. She has the right to make bishops promulge the pope's decrees without consent of their rulers. (28)


1. She has the right to require it to be believed of all, that immunity of the church, and of ecclesiastical persons, did not arise out of civil law. (30)

2. She has the right to require that temporal causes, whether civil or criminal, to which clergymen are parties, should be tried by ecclesiastical tribunals. (31)

3. She has the right to alter the conclusions of a national church council, and to reject the claim of the government of the country to have the matter decided in the terms adopted by such national council. (36)

4. She has the right to prevent the foundation of any national church not subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff. (41)

5. She has the right to reject any claim on the part of the state to either a direct and positive or an indirect .and negative power in religious affairs, and more especially when the state is ruled by an unbelieving prince. (41)

6. She has the right to reject the claim of the state to allow appeals from ecclesiastical to civil tribunals. (41)

7. She has the right to exclude the civil power from all interference in "matters which appertain to" religion, morals, and spiritual government. Hence she has the right of excluding it from pronouncing any judgment on instruc-tions which may be issued by any pastor (priest) of the church for the guidance of conscience. (44)

8. She has the right to deprive the civil authority of the entire government of public schools. (45)

9. She has the right to refuse to show the plan of study in clerical seminaries to civil authorities (46)

10. She has the right to fix the age for taking monastic vows both for men and women, irrespective of civil authority.


1. She has the right to uphold the laws of religious orders against the civil authority; the right to deprive the latter of power to aid any who, after having taken vows, should seek to escape from monasteries or nunneries; and the right to prevent it from taking the houses, churches, or funds of re-ligious orders under secular management. (53)

2. She has the right of holding kings and princes in subjection to her jurisdiction, and of denying that their authority is superior to her own in determining questions of jurisdiction. (54)

3. She has the right of subjecting the study of philosophy, moral science, and civil law, to ecclesiastical authority. (56)

4. She has the right of enjoining a policy of interven-tion. (62)

5. She has the right to require the sacrament of marriage as essential to every contract of marriage. (62)

6. She has the right to deprive the civil authority of power to sanction divorce in any case. (67)

7. She has the right to enact impediments which in-validate marriage, the right to prevent the state from doing so, also the right to prevent it from annulling such impedi-ments when existing. (68)

8. She has the right to require all to receive the canons of Trent as of dogmatical authority, namely, those canons which anathematize such as deny her the power of setting up impediments which invalidate marriage. (70)

9. She has the right of treating all marriages which are not solemnized according to the form of the Council of Trent as invalid, even those solemnized according to a form pre-scribed by civil law. (71)

10. She has the right of annulling marriages solemnized only by civil contract. (73)


1. She has the right of judging all matrimonial causes, and those arising out of betrothals, in ecclesiastical courts. (74)

2. She has the right to require that the Catholic re-ligion shall be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all others. (77)

3. She has the right to prevent the state from granting the public exercise of their own worship to persons immi-grating into it. (78)

4. She has the right to require the state not to permit free expression of opinion. (79)

5. The Roman pontiff cannot be reconciled to modern civilization and progress, or compromise with them. (80)

Thus the pope of Rome has declared that civil govern-ment must be papal; that civil law must be canons; that civili-zation must be Catholic. In so declaring he has issued eighty propositions with the ominous "we reprove and condemn," and has consigned to eternal anathema all who reject them. Civilta Cattolica, (Catholic Civilization), official publication of the Roman Catholic church commented on the syllabus as follows: "It is not a document to turn sinners to God, but a charter of ecclesiastical dominion over all civil society"- and that is what the Roman church believes. The eighty articles of the syllabus were confirmed by the pope, June 17, 1867, as "a rule of teaching"-hence to be actively propagated. It was confirmed by the consistory of five hundred bishops, June 26, 1867, and by the general council, in 1869, as being an "infallible and irreformable" document, with "eternal anathema" on every human being who rejected it.

The syllabus defines the right of the Roman Catholic church to establish mercenaries and auxiliaries of a foreign power in every nation, to force the millions of men of our own fine race and fine country to submit to her chief bishop, the pope, as their king, who claims the right to set priests before rulers in every country with power to declare void the


laws of any nation or country. Resenting this syllabus, Na-poleon III prohibited its promulgation in France. IV THE VATICAN DECREES

This Roman Catholic document, called Vatican Decrees, was intended to be the vehicle to project the doctrines of the syllabus in regard to the church and state from the realm of ideas into the domain of facts. It is the document of im-portance, companion in crime to the syllabus, officially known as The Dogmatic Constitution On Catholic Faith, issued by the Vatican Council, April 24, 1870, and hence commonly called the Vatican Decrees. It should be remembered that the syllabus was issued by Pius IX in 1864, and the decrees were issued by the Vatican Council in 1870, when the council was convened by the pope five years after he issued his syllabus, for the purpose of making the infallibility of the pope a definite dogma of the Roman Catholic church. This document, with its decrees and canons, was intended to be the vehicle by which to project the doctrines of the syllabus of Pius IX in regard to the church and the state from the realm of opinion into the domain of fact, and step by step to bind these docu-ments on all mankind, every individual in the whole wide world.

This English text of the Vatican Decrees, translated from the Latin, is also taken from the work previously mentioned, by Gladstone and Schaff, and is therefore an unquestionably reliable translation of the document. There are eighteen decrees and twenty-one canons, with that many anathemas on every human soul who rejects them. Here they are:


Published in the Third Session, held April 24, 1870 Pius, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, with the Approval of

the Sacred Council, for Perpetual Remembrance.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and Redeemer of Man-kind, before returning to his heavenly Father, promised that he would


be with the Church Militant on earth all days, even to the con-summation of the world. Therefore, he has never ceased to be present with his beloved Spouse, to assist her when teaching, to bless herwhenatwork, andtoaidherwhenindanger. Andthishis salutary providence, which has been constantly displayed by other innumerable benefits, has been most manifestly proved by the abundant good results which Christendom has derived from oecu-menical Councils, and particularly from that of Trent, although it was held in evil times. For, as a consequence, the sacred doctrines of the faith have been defined more closely, and set forth more fully, errors have been condemned and restrained, ecclesiastical discipline has been restored and more firmly secured, the love of learning and of piety has been promoted among the clergy, colleges have been established to educate youth for the sacred warfare, and the morals of the Christian world have been renewed by the more accurate training of the faithful, and by the more frequent use of the sacraments. Moreover, there has resulted a closer communion of the members with the visible head, an increase of vigor in the whole mystical body of Christ, the multiplication of religious congregations, and of other institutions of Christian piety, and such ardor in extend-ing the kingdom of Christ throughout the world as constantly en-dures, even to the sacrifice of life itself.

But while we recall with due thankfulness these and other signal benefits which the divine mercy has bestowed on the Church, especially by the last oecumenical Council, we can not restrain our bitter sorrow for the grave evils, which are principally due to the fact that the authority of that sacred Synod has been contemned, or its wise decrees neglected, by many.

No one is ignorant that the heresies proscribed by the Fathers of Trent, by which the divine magisterium of the Church was rejected, and all matters regarding religion were surrendered to the judgment of each individual, gradually became dissolved into many sects, which disagreed and contended with one another, until at length not a few lost all faith in Christ. Even the Holy Scriptures, which had previously been declared the sole source and judge of Christian doctrine, began to be held no longer as divine, but to be ranked among the fictions of mythology.

Then there arose, and too widely overspread the world, that doctrine of rationalism, or naturalism, which opposes itself in every way to the Christian religion as a supernatural institution, and works with the utmost zeal in order that, after Christ, our sole Lord and Saviour, has been excluded from the minds of men, and from the life and moral acts of nations, the reign of what they call pure reason or nature may be established. And after forsaking and re-

jecting the Christian religion, and denying the true God and his Christ, the minds of many have sunk into the abyss of Pantheism, Materialism, and Atheism, until, denying rational nature itself, and every sound rule of right, they labor to destroy the deepest founda-tions of human society.

Unhappily, it has yet further come to pass that, while this im-pietyprevailedoneveryside,manyeven of the children of the Cath-olic Church have strayed from the path of true piety, and by the gradual diminution of the truths they held, the Catholic sense became weakened in them. For, led away by various and strange doctrines, utterly confusing nature and grace, human science and divine faith, they are found to deprave the true sense of the doctrines which our holy Mother Church holds and teaches, and endangers the integrity and the soundness of the faith.

Considering these things, how can the Church fail to be deeply stirred? For, even as God wills all men to be saved, and to arrive at the knowledge of the truth, even as Christ came to save what had perished, and to gather together the children of God who had been dispersed, so the Church, constituted by God the mother and teacher of nations, knows its own office as debtor to all, and is ever ready and watchful to raise the fallen, to support those who are falling, to embrace those who return, to confirm the good and to carry them on to better things. Hence, it can never forbear from witnessing to and proclaiming the truth of God, which heals all things, knowing the words addressed to it: 'My Spirit that is in thee, and my words that I have put in my mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, from henceforth and forever.'

We therefore, following the footsteps of our predecessors, have never ceased, as becomes our supreme Apostolic office, from teaching and defending Catholic truth, and condemning doctrines of error. And now, with the Bishops of the whole world assembled round us, and judging with us, congregated by our authority, and in the Holy Spirit, in this oecumenical Council, we, supported by the Word of God written and handed down as we received it from the Catholic Church, preserved with sacredness and set forth according to truth, have determined to profess and declare the salutary teaching of Christ from this Chair of Peter, and in sight of all, proscribing and condemn-ing, by the power given to us of God, all errors contrary thereto.


Of God, the Creator of all Things.

The holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church believes and confesses that there isone true and living God,Creator and Lord of heaven


and earth, almighty, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intelligence, in will, and in all perfection, who, as being one, sole, absolutely simple and immutable spiritual substance, is to be de-clared as really and essentially distinct from the world, of supreme beatitude in and from himself, and ineffably exalted above all things which exist, or are conceivable, except himself.

This one only true God, of his own goodness and almighty power, not for the increase of acquirement of his own happiness, but to manifest his perfection by the blessings which he bestows on crea-tures, and with absolute freedom of counsel, created out of nothing, from the very first beginning of time, both the spiritual and the corporeal, to wit, the angelical and the mundane, and afterwards the human creature, as partaking, in a sense, of both, consisting of spirit and of body.

God protects and governs by his providence all things which he hath made, 'reaching from end to end mightily, and ordering all things sweetly.' For 'all things are bare and open to his eyes,' even those whichareyettobe bythefreeactionofcreatures.


Of Revelation.

The same holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, may be certainly known by the natural light of human reason, reason, by means of created things; 'for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,' but that it pleased his wisdom and bounty to reveal himself, and the eternal decrees of his will, to mankind by another and a supernatural way: as the Apostle says, 'God, having spoken on divers occasions, and many ways, in times past, to the Fathers by the Prophets; last of all, in these days, hath spoken to us by his Son.'

It is to be ascribed to this divine revelation, that such truths among things divine as of themselves are not beyond human reason, can, even in the present condition of mankind, be known by every one with facility, with firm assurance, and with no admixture of error. This, however, is not the reason why revelation is to be called absolutely necessary; but because God of his infinite goodness has ordained man to a supernatural end, viz., to be a sharer of divine blessings, which utterly exceed the intelligence of the human mind; for 'eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.'

Further, thissupernatural revelation, according to the universal belief of the Church, declared by the sacred Synod of Trent, is con-tained in the written books and unwritten traditions which have come down to us, having been received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself; or from the Apostles themselves, by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have been transmitted, as it were, from hand to hand. And these books of the Old and New Testament are to be received as sacred and canonical, in their integrity, with all their parts, as they are enumerated in the decree of the said Council, and are contained in the ancient Latin edition of the Vulgate. These the Church holds to be sacred and canonical, not because, having been carefully composed by mere human industry, they were after-ward approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation, with no admixture of error; but because having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been delivered as such to the Church herself.

And as the things which the holy Synod of Trent decreed for the good of souls concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture, in order to curb rebellious spirits, have been wrongly explained by some, we, renewing the said decree, declare this to be their sense, that, in matters of faith, and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our holy Mother Church hath held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interrupt the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, like-wise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.


On Faith.

Man being wholly dependent upon God, as upon his creator and Lord, and created reason being absolutely subject to uncreated truth, we are bound to yield to God, by faith in his revelation, the full obedience of our intelligence and will. And the Catholic Church teaches that this faith, which is the beginning of man's salvation, is a supernatural virtue, whereby, inspired and assisted by the grace of God, we believe that the things which he has revealed are true; not because of the intrinsic truth of the things, viewed by the natural light of reason, but because of the authenticity of God himself, who reveals them, and who can neither be deceived nor deceive. For faith, as the Apostle testifies, is 'the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things that appear not.'

Nevertheless, in order that the obedience of our faith might be in harmony with reason, God willed that to the interior help of the ORIGIN ANDEVILS OF ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

Holy Spirit there should be joined exterior proofs of his revelation; to wit, divine facts, and especially miracles and prophecies, which, as they manifestly display the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are most certain proofs of his divine revelation, adopted to the intelligence of all men. Wherefore, both Moses and the Prophets, and, most especially, Christ our Lord himself, showed forth many and most evident miracles and prophecies; and of the Apostles we read: 'But they going forth preached everywhere, the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed.' And again, it is written: 'We have the more firm prophetical word, whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light shining in a dark place.'

But though the assent of faith is by no means a blind action of the mind, still no man can assent to the Gospel teaching, as is necessary to obtain salvation, without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all men sweetness in assenting to and believing in the truth. Wherefore, faith itself, even when it does not work by charity, is in itself a gift of God, and the act of faith is a work appertaining to salvation, by which man yields voluntary obedience to God himself, by assenting to and co-operating with his grace, which he is able to resist.

Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Cath-olic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.

And since, without faith, it is impossible to please God, and to attain to the fellowship of his children, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end. And, that we may be able to satisfy the obligation of embracing the true faith, and of constantly persevering in it, God has instituted the Church through his only-begotten Son, and has bestowed on it manifest notes of that institution, that it may be recognized by all men as the guardian and teacher of the revealed Word; for to the Catholic Church alone belong all those many and admirable tokens which have been divinely established for the evidence credibility of the Christian faith. Nay, more, the Church by itself, with its marvelous extension, its eminent holiness, and its inexhaustible fruitfulness in every good thing, with its Catholic unity and its invincible stability, is a great and perpetual motive of credibility, and an irrefutable witness of its own divine mission.

And thus, like a standard set up unto the nations, it both invites to itself those who do not yet believe, and assures its children that the faith which they profess rests on the most firm foundation. And its testimony isefficaciouslysupported bya power from on high. For our most merciful Lord gives his grace to stir up and to aid those who are astray, that they may come to a knowledge of the truth; and to those whom he has brought out of darkness into his own admirable light he gives his grace to strengthen them to persevere in that light, deserting none who desert not him. Therefore there is no parity between the condition of those who have adhered to the Catholic truth by the heavenly gift of faith, and of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have re-ceived the faith under the magisterium of the Church can never have any just cause for changing or doubting that faith. Therefore, giving thanks to God the Father who has made us worthy to be par-takers of the lot of the Saints in light, let us not neglect so great salvation, but with our eyes fixed on Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering.


On Faith and Reason.

The Catholic Church, with one consent, has also ever held and does hold that there is a twofold order of knowledge distinct both in principle and also in object; in principle, because our knowledge in the one is by natural reason, and the other by divine faith; in object, because, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed to our belief mysteries hidden in God, which, unless divinely revealed, can not be known. Wherefore, the Apostle, who testifies that God is known by the Gentiles through created things, still, when discoursing of the grace and truth which come by Jesus Christ, says: 'We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world unto our glory; which none of the princes of this world knew............but to us God hath revealed them by his Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.' And the only-begotten Son himself gives thanks to the Father, because he has hid these things from the wise and prudent, and has revealed them to little ones.

Reason, indeed, enlightened by faith, when it seeks earnestly, piously, and calmly, attains by a gift from God some, and that a very fruitful, understanding of mysteries; partly from the analogy of those things which it naturally knows, partly from the relations which the mysteries bear to one another, and to the last end of man; but reason never becomes capable of apprehending mysteries as it does those truths which constitute its proper object. For the divine mysteries by their own nature so far transcend the created intelli-gence that, even when delivered by revelation and received by faith, ORIGIN AND EVILS OF ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

they remain covered with the veil of faith itself, and shrouded in a certain degree of darkness; so long as we are pilgrims in this mortal life, not yet with God; 'for We walk by faith and not by sight.'

But although faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason, since the same God who re-veals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind; and God can not deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. The false appearance of such a contradiction is mainly due, either to the dogmas of faith not having been under-stood and expounded according to the mind of the Church, or to the inventions of opinion having been taken for the verdicts of reason. We define, therefore, that every assertion contrary to a truth of enlightened faith is utterly false. Further, the Church, which, together with the Apostolic office of teaching, has received a charge to guard the deposit of faith, derives from God the right and the duty of proscribing false science, lest any should be de-ceived by philosophy and vain fallacy. Therefore all faithful Chris-tians are not only forbidden to defend, as legitimate conclusions of science, such opinions as are known to be contrary to the doctrines of faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, but are altogether bound to account them as errors which put on the fallacious appearance of truth.

And not only can faith and reason never be opposed to one an-other, but they are of mutual aid one to the other; for right reason demonstrates the foundations of faith, and, enlightened by its light, cultivates the science of things divine; while faith frees and guards reason from errors, and furnishes it with manifold knowledge. So far, therefore, is the Church from opposing the cultivation of human arts and sciences, that it in many ways helps and promotes it. For the Church neither ignores nor despises the benefits of human life which result from the arts and sciences, but confess that, as they came from God, the Lord of all science, if they be right-ly used, they lead to God by the help of his grace. Nor does the Church forbid that each of these sciences in its sphere should make use of its own principles and its own method; but, while recognizing this just liberty, it stands watchfully on guard, lest sciences, setting themselves against the divine teaching, or transgressing their own limits, should invade and disturb the domain of faith.

For the doctrine of faith which God hath revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence, also, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our holy mother the Church has once declared; nor is that meaning ever to be departed from, under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them. Let, then, the intelligence, science, and wisdom of each and all, of individuals and of the whole Church, in all ages and all times, increase and flourish in abundance and vigor; but simply in its own proper kind, that is to say, in one and the same sense, one and the same judgment.


Of God, the Creator of all things.

1. If any one shall deny one true God, Creator and Lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.

2. If any one shall not be ashamed to affirm that, except matter, nothing exists: let him be anathema.

3. If any one shall say that the substance and essence of God and of all things are one and the same: let him be anathema.

4. If any one shall say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, have emanated from the divine substance; or that the di-vine essence by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things; or, lastly, that God is universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes the universality of things, distinct according to genera, species, and individuals: let him be anathema.

5. If any one confess not that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, have been, in their whole substance, produced by God out of nothing; or shall say that God created, not by his will, free from all necessity, but by a necessity equal to the necessity whereby he loves himself; or shall deny that the world was made for the glory of God: let him be anathema.

II. Of Revelation.

1. If any one shall say that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, can not be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through created things: let him be anathema.

2. If any one shall say that it is impossible or inexpedient that man should be taught by divine revelation concerning God and the worship to be paid to him: let him be anathema.

3. If any one shall say that man can not be raised by divine power to a higher than natural knowledge and perfection, but can and ought, by a continuous progress, to arrive at length, of himself, to the possession of all that is true and good: let him be anathema.

4. If any one shall not receive as sacred and canonical the books of Holy Scripture, entire with all their parts, as the holy Synod of Trent has enumerated them, or shall deny that they have been di-vinely inspired: let him be anathema.



On Faith.

1. If any one shall say that human reason is so independent that faith can not be enjoined upon it by God: let him be anathema.

2. If any one shall say that divine faith is not distinguished from natural knowledge of God and of moral truths, and therefore that it is not requisite for divine faith that revealed truth be believed because of the authority of God, who reveals it: let him be anathema.

3. If any one shall say that divine revelation can not be made credible by outward signs, and therefore that men ought to be moved to faith solely by the internal experience of each, or by private inspiration: let him be anathema.

4. If any one shall say that miracles are impossible, and there-fore that all accounts regarding them, even those contained in Holy Scripture, are to be dismissed as fabulous or mythical; or that mir-acles can never be known with certainty, and that the divine origin of Christianity can not be proved by them: let him be anathema.

5. If any one shall say that the assent of Christian faith is not a free act, but inevitably produced by the arguments of human reason; or that the grace of God is necessary for that living faith only which worketh by charity: let him be anathema.

6. If any one shall say that the condition of the faithful, and of those who have not yet attained to the only true faith, is on par, so that Catholics may have just cause for doubting, with suspended assent, the faith which they have already received under the magis-terium of the Church, until they shall have obtained a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith: let him be anathema.


On Faith and Reason.

1. If any one shall say that in divine revelation there are no mysteries, truly and properly so called, but that all the doctrines of faith can be understood and demonstrated from natural principles, by properly cultivated reason: let him be anathema.

2. If any one shall say that human sciences are to be so freely treated that their assertions, although opposed to revealed doctrine, are to be held true, and can not be condemned by the Church: let him be anathema.

3. If any one shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, accord-ing to the progress of science, a sense is to be given to doctrines Propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

Therefore, we, fulfilling the dutyof our supreme pastoral office, entreat, by the mercies of Jesus Christ, and, by the authority of the same, our God and Savior, we command, all the faithful of Christ, and especially those who are set over others, or are charged with the office of instruction, that they earnestly and diligently apply themselves to ward off and eliminate these errors from holy Church, and to spread the light of pure faith.

And since it is not sufficient to shun heretical pravity, unless those errors also be diligently avoided which more or less nearly approach it, we admonish all men of the further duty of observing those con-stitutions and decrees by which such erroneous opinions as are not here specifically enumerated, have been proscribed and condemned by this Holy See.

Given at Rome in public Session solemnly held in the Vatican Basilica in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, on the twenty-fourth day of April, in the twenty-fourth year of our Pontificate.

But in the exercise of human authority there is never a stop. One annunciation necessitates another, one decree de-mands another, and all documents and dogmas require others to amplify and enforce them. So the fourth session of the council proclaimed the Dogmatic Constitution.


Published in the Fourth Session of the holy Oecumenical Council of the Vatican

Pius Bishop, Servant of Servants of God, with the Approval of the Sacred Council, for an Everlasting Remembrance.

The eternal Pastor and Bishop of our souls, in order to continue for all time the life-giving work of his Redemption, determined to build up the holy Church, wherein, as in the house of the living God, all who believe might be united in the bond of one faith and one charity. Wherefore, before he entered into his glory, he prayed unto the Father, not for the Apostles only, but for those also who through their preaching should come to believe in him that all might be one even as he the Son and the Father are one. As then he sent the Apostles whom he had chosen to himself from the world, as he himself had been sent by the father: so he willed that there should ever be pastors and teachers in his Church to the end of the world. And in order that the Episcopate also might be one and undivided, and that by means of a closely united priesthood the multitude of the faithful might be kept secure in the oneness of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the Apos-tles, and fixed in him the abiding principle of this twofold unity, and its visible foundation, in the strength of which the everlasting temple should arise, and the Church in the firmness of that faith should lift her majestic front to Heaven. And seeing that the gates of hell, with daily increase of hatred, are gathering their strength on every side to upheave the foundation laid by God's own hand, and so, if that might be, to overthrow the Church: we. therefore, for the preservation, safe-keeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the sacred Council, do judge it to be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy, in which is found the strength and solidity of the entire Church, and at the same time to proscribe and con-demn the contrary errors, so hurtful to the flock of Christ.

CHAPTER I. Of the Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in blessed Peter.

We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said: 'Thou shalt be called Cephas,' that the Lord after the confession made by him, saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' addressed these solemn words: 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And what-soever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus after his resur-rection bestowed the jurisdiction of chief pastor and ruler over all his fold in the words: 'Feed my lambs; feed my sheep.' At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was

not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself,


but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her min-ister.

If any one, therefore, shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same directly and im-mediately received from the same our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction: let him be anathema.


On the Perpetuity of the Primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiffs.

That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the Blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Churchy must, by the same institution, necessarily remain un-ceasingly in the Church; which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world. For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of mankind, and lives, pre-sides, and judges, to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by him, and consecrated by his blood. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does by the institution of Christ himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church. The disposition made by Incarnate Truth therefore remains, and blessed Peter, abiding through the strength of the Rock in the power that he received, has not abandoned the direction of the Church. Wherefore it has at all times been necessary that every particular Church-that is to say, the faithful throughout the world-should agree with the Roman Church, on account of the greater authority of the princedom which this has received; that all being associated in the unity of that See whence the rights of communion spread to all, might grow together as members of one Head in the compact unity of the body.

If, then, any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that blessed Peter should have a per-petual line of successors in the Primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

CHAPTER III. On the Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Soman Pontiff. Wherefore, resting on plain testimonies of the Sacred Writings, and adhering to the plainand express decrees bothofour predeces-


sors, the Roman Pontiffs, and of the General Councils, we renew the definition of the oecumenical Council of Florence, in virtue of which all the faithful of Christ must believe that the holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff possesses the primacy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is true vicar of Christ, and head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter to rule, feed, and govern the universal Church by Jesus Christ our Lord; as is also contained in the acts of the General Councils and in the sacred Canons.

Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of what-ever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world, so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor through the preservation of unity both of communion and of profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and of salvation.

But so far is this power of the Supreme Pontiff from being any prejudice to the ordinary and immediate power of episcopal juris-diction, by which Bishops, who have been set by the Holy Ghost to succeed and hold the place of the Apostles, feed and govern, each his own flock, as true pastors, that this their episcopal authority is really asserted, strengthened, and protected by the supreme and universal Pastor; in accordance with the words of St. Gregory the Great: 'My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the firm strength of my brethren. I am truly honored when the honor due to each and all is not withheld.

Further, from this supreme power possessed by the Roman Pontiff of governing the universal Church, it follows that he has the right of free communication with the pastors of the whole Church, and with their flocks, that these may be taught and ruled by him in the way of salvation. Wherefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that the communication between this supreme head and the pastors and their flocks can lawfully be impeded; or who make this communication subject to the will of the secular power, so as to maintain that whatever is done by the Apostolic See, or by its authority, for the government of the Church, can 82 BULWARKSOFTHE FAITH

not have force or value unless it be confirmed by the assent of the secular power.

And since by the divine right of Apostolic primacy the Roman Pontiff is placed over the universal Church, we further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there Is no greater, nor can any lawfully review its judgment. Wherefore they err from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an oecumenical Council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.

If, then, any shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fulness of his supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the churches, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful: let him be anathema.


Concerning the Infallible Teaching of the Roman Pontiff.

Moreover, that the supreme power of teaching is also included in the Apostolic primacy, which the Roman Pontiff, as the successor

of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, possesses over the whole Church, this Holy See has always held, the perpetual practice of the Church confirms, and oecumenical Councils also have declared, especially those in which the East and West met in the union of faith and charity. For the Fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following in the footsteps of their predecessors, gave forth this solemn profession: The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith. And because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ can not be passed by, who said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' these things which have been said are approved by events, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion and her holy and well-known doctrine has always been kept undefiled. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion, which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion. And, with the approval of the Second Council of Lyons, ORIGIN ANDEVILS OF ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

the Greeks professed that the holy Roman Church enjoys supreme and full primacy and pre-eminence over the whole Catholic Church, when it truly and humbly acknowledges that it has received with the plenitude of power from our Lord himself in the person of blessed Peter, Prince or Head of the Apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is; and as the Apostolic See is bound before all others to defend the truth of faith, so also, if any questions regarding faith shall arise, they must be defined by its judgment. Finally, the Council of Florence defined: That the Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that to him in blessed Peter was delivered by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the whole Church.

To satisfy this pastoral duty, our predecessors ever made un-wearied efforts that the salutary doctrine of Christ might be pro-pagated among all the nations of the earth, and with equal care watched that it might be preserved genuine and pure where it had been received. Therefore the Bishops of the whole world, now singly, now assembled in Synod, following the long-established custom of churches, and the form of the ancient rule, sent word to this Apos-tolic See of those dangers especially which sprang up in matters of faith, and there the losses of faith might be effectually repaired where the faith can not fail. And the Roman Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and circumstances, sometimes assembling oecumenical Councils, or asking for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes using other helps which Divine Providence supplied, defined as to be held those things which with the help of God they had recognized as conformable with the sacred Scriptures and Apostolic traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by his revelation they might make known new doctrine; but that by his assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles. And, indeed, all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed, their Apostolic doc-trine; knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error according to the divine promise of the Lord our Savior made to the Prince of his disciples: 'I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. and, when thou art converted, confirm they brethren.'

This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by heaven upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the wholeflock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell.

But since in this very age, in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic office is most of all required, not a few are found who take away from its authority, we judge it altogether necessary solemnly to assert the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God vouch-safed to join with the supreme pastoral office.

Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Savior, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the sacred Council approving, we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of them-selves, and not from the consent of the Church.

But if any one-which may God avert-presume to contradict this our definition: let him be anathema.

Given at Rome in public Session solemnly held in the Vatican Basilica in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, on the eighteenth day of July, in the twenty-fifth year of our Pontificate.

There it is, my friends, with all of its high-handed, arrogant and blasphemous presumption. Backed by the dogma of infallibility this bad document is automatically lifted above all dispute. The Romans themselves asked: "Who would not pay a handsome sum to be armed with an infallible decision which will at once crush all opposition and put down air adversaries?" A practical question indeed. The Decrees were made penal by eighteen anathemas, and declared by the pope and the council to be irreformable and infallible. For a final and brief once-over, let us take a general look at it.


(1) A summary of the Decrees.

The constitution is composed of chapters and canons. The chapters are intended to furnish a text for priests as preachers, and for professors, and the canons are of a penal nature, and bind the conscience of every man under penalty of anathema, and even death if and when the pope succeeds in securing the exercise of the civil power which the document grants him, and vests in him.

The twenty-one canons may be summed up as follows; One to five: This group of canons declare that the Roman Catholic Church is essential to the salvation of every soul.

Six to thirteen: Within this collection of assertions is the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church must of necessity be intolerant, inasmuch as it is infallible, perfect, and final, therefore invests compulsory powers in the bishops of the church.

Fourteen to sixteen: These particular decrees give un-limited power and dominion to the pope. The pope is the vicar of God, and all the bishops are vicars of the pope, per these canons.

Seventeen: This canon, viewed separately, makes the power of the pope compatible with civil authority, requiring civil law itself to abide within the limits prescribed and set for it by the pope.

Eighteen to twenty-one: This aggregation of canonical dogmas confuses the natural and the civil rights of men, puts civil law and public opinion on the same-level, and condemns them both; and asserts that the pope alone can give the definition of science, determine within his own power and prerogative what shall be regarded as science and what shall not be accepted as science, and to exercise the power to say the final word, under penalty of spiritual anathema and physical death to every soul rejecting his decision, on all matters temporal and spiritual, civil and religious.

To the words of the great statesman, lawyer and jurist, William E. Gladstone, of England, the United States and all the world should give heed. After reviewing these Vatican Decrees and their bearing on civil allegiance, Mr. Gladstone said:

"It would become our political leaders to look more closely into the peculiarities of a system which denies the right of the subject to freedom of thought and action upon matters most material to his civil and religious welfare. There is no mode of ascertaining the spirit and tendency of great institu-tions but in a careful study of their history. The writer is profoundly impressed with the conviction that our political instructors have wholly neglected this important duty; or, which is perhaps worse, left it in the hands of a class of persons whose zeal has outrun their discretion, and who have sought rather to engage the prejudices than the judgment of their hearers in the cause they have, no doubt sincerely, at heart."

There is a prevailing idea among modern statesmen that the state itself can do nothing to curb the menace of Roman Catholicism to our free government and our free institutions on the ground that legislation against religion cannot be made. But the fact that the state has voluntarily renounced the right of the government to dictate to men their worship and their faith, does not deny to the state the right to protect the society of which it is composed against an element within it that would destroy, by allegiance to a foreign composite temporal-spiritual power, the freedom of both. The state cannot empty itself of this moral character, nor exempt itself from this duty. The state is not the author of rights, but it is the guardian of them. Any principle that empties the state of its moral mission, also empties the law of all moral character, and robs society of both the civil and religious pro-tection the governed have the right to expect from the govern-ment. This is the truth taught by Paul, the apostle of Jesus Christ, who was also himself a Roman-citizen Christian, in Romans 13. The moral mission of the state is written on


every page of the Bible, both of the Old Testament and of the New Testament, even to the moral right of bearing the sword for good against the evil-doer; but the political mission of the church is not found on any page of the Bible.

No movement lies so deep against freedom in civil and religious society as the principles embodies in these canons and decrees, which deny state rights, civil rights and the rights of the individual conscience, by declaring that the pope must be the author of all these rights, and the state in subordination to the pope becomes the guardian only of such rights as are set up and defined by the Vatican head of the Roman Catholic Church.

Passing on from this summary of these evil decrees and wicked canons of Romanism, let us observe the shift in the doctrines of Catholicism which involve some rather vital points of their Catechism.

(2) The changes in the Catechism.

The early catechisms did not place infallibility in the pope, but in the church, nor did they refer to the church as the Roman Catholic Church, but merely called it Catholic, or the universal church. Previously it had been believed that the pope had no authority or infallibility except through the church; but the syllabus and the decrees changed this doctrine to mean that the church now has no authority or infallibility except through the pope. The doctrine of infallibility was thus made to do a right-about-face, turned squarely around and flatly reversed. It would not be so easy to teach that the pope singly and individually is infallible, and looking to this end, shifts in the catechism were being somewhat grad-ually brought about. Changes were made in the use of the word "believe" as it applied to believing in-the Catholic Church and in the teaching of the church with "respect and obedience to the pope." So the old teaching of an infallible church was made to yield to the new claims of an infallible pope. Though declared, confirmed and ratified to be infallible, irreformable and anathema on all who reject them, five changes were made in the catechism. These changes cover points on the use of the expression "Roman Church"; the question of whether Christ or Peter should be titled the foundation of the church; the question of whether infallibility belongs to the church or to the pope; the point of difference-as to believing the teaching of the church or disobedience to the living pope; and questions of changes in phraseology, as to use of the term the "doctrine of Christ" or the "doctrine of the pope."

(3) The test of infallibility. After several years of strenuous effort-from 1864 to 1870-to get the articles of the syllabus and the decrees confirmed and ratified into final infallibility, the actual test of its infallibility came only two months after the ratification. Napoleon recognized the potential threat to France contained

in the syllabus and the decrees and their ratification and marched against the Vatican.

The pope became frantic and made offers of compromise, which Napoleon declined. So his first attempt in political rights and action under the syllabus failed. Next, Italy itself joined with Napoleon and mobilized against the pope, and the chambers of the Vatican echoed to the resounding thunders of artillery. The pope marshalled his own army of 8000, opposing an army of 50,000. Soon the order to hoist the white flag of surrender came, given by the pope himself! Only two months after the infallible, irreformable decree giving him the unlimited exercise of civil power over every nation! The first test failed-while the council to restore the pope's temporal power still sat in session-October 1870. The mon-strosity that called itself a "spiritual" state was carnal and vile and rotten to the core with political corruption and intrigue. The events were rapid. The order of suspension was issued by the council in session, the pope retired to the Vatican, a self-declared prisoner in self-imposed exile-a prisoner, sitting in a palace of 11,000 apartments, as rich as any king, as free


as any bishop in the world-yet declared himself a prisoner, never to leave the Vatican until his temporal power should be handed back to him (on a platter) and his civil authority restored. Such is the spirit of Roman Catholicism today. Civilta, official Catholic publication immediately issued the following statement in two points: 1. Rome is to receive the pope back at the point of the bayonet, 2. the whole world is yet to accept his reign, also at the point of the bayonet, unless nations willingly bow the neck and lick the dust where marches the vicar of God!

The temporal power of the pope ended in 1870 when Italian troops entered the city of Rome, which, with the territory around it belonging to the pope, fell to the Italians and became part of the kingdom of Italy. It was then that the arrogant vicar, the pope of Rome, retired to the Vatican and remained a voluntary exile. He had fallen from his temporal throne, not one nation having submitted to its code of laws, not one kingdom of the earth having installed a ruler to reign under the laws of the syllabus!

(4) What papal power means. Through the Internal Tribunal the Roman Catholic bishop would be seated in every church, in every place, in every home, with authority over and precedence over all local law, family and conscience. Through the External Tribunal the Roman Catholic bishop would be seated in every city, maintaining headship over civil and military law, and over every magistrate from the justice to the supreme court, making every man, woman and child appear before the person of the pope, or bishop of his appointment, as the final bar before whom kings, resi-dents, senators and citizens may be cited. From that judgment seat would fall judicial sentences that only an omnipotent God could challenge! Such universal power was and yet is the ultimate end in view.

But tens of thousands of men yet take the oath of al-legiance to the pope! Any ruler or president who does not know and believe him to be a pretender and a fraud is in constant danger of risking a whole nation by some act of compliance, induced by religious sentiment, to this the world's worst corrupted religion ever brought to light by the events of time. Friends, as citizens of a free state and as friends of Christianity, I appeal to you to compare the effects within five years if the pope of Rome ruled and the articles of the syllabus should be enforced. The American Bill of Rights would be no more. The doors of our legislatures, schools and churches would be closed. The pope and his prelates would rule. Our people would be his subjects and our governors his vassals. As it is, we live in a land of manifold privilege, economic, political and religious freedom. These are points which our statesmen have no right to leave to theologians, churchmen and preachers, and on which they should not themselves remain in doubt. These are questions of fact and of far-reaching effect politically as well as religi-ously; and it is the responsibility of our statesmen to know them andtheir dutytotell it tothe people of this nation and to all mankind.

The "sword of the mouth" in a war of thought and words from pulpit, pen and press, can avoid the carnage of physical war and avert the repetition of horrors of the past in the struggles of men of many nations to free themselves of the fetters of Romanism and shake off the shackles of Catholicism.

It is to be granted that there are many sincere people in the Roman Catholic Church, but they do not know what it is. The Bible has been so long a proscribed book among Catholic people, under the bad doctrine that the Bible is not for the laity, that the average Roman Catholic gropes in utter darkness so far as possessing personal knowledge or individual information is concerned on any of these important and imperative matters. From the vantage point of an en-lightened age we look back over the centuries of darkness and see the spectacle of enslaved races, we can understand


why such conditions brought about a revolt, the tidal wave of which sent the spirit of the reformation into every civilized continent of the earth. The Roman Catholic Church is on good behavior today. She has failed in every country on earth, and she has her eyes on the United States of America. The United States is Rome's No. I missionary field. The repre-sentatives of Rome have so stated; that the U. S. A. is Rome's greatest missionary field; that is what they believe, and they are determined to take us if they can. They will overthrow every government on earth, and establish the power of the pope in every country, with the result of abolishing every man's religion, every man's freedom and every man's con-science; with every man's home and family, his wife and his children, and every living soul brought under the domination of the pope of Rome, who claims to be the supreme ruler of the universe, the sole representative of Deity on earth, the vicar of God, his so-called holiness, the pope.

Turning from such a dark and abominable picture to the blessed pages of the New Testament, I would point out to you the church of the Lord Jesus Christ; that society of dis-ciples who, under the preaching of the great commission, believed and were baptized into Christ and were added to the church; who then went everywhere preaching the good news of salvation, of peace on earth and the hope of heaven; to free rather than enslave, to elevate rather than degrade men, to save rather than damn their souls in papal tyranny here and purgatorial anathemas hereafter; and I come to you with the appeal to turn away from this mother of harlots, and all of her daughters, and turning to the New Testament church become a Christian. Be a Christian only-for the Bible only makes a Christian only. Take the Bible as your only rule of faith, practice and conduct. Renounce once and for all the encyclicals, decrees, canons and syllabuses of a man who claims to be a god on earth. Repudiate a system which cannot be of God, and become a member of the one and only church of Christ-the New Testament church.



This is a grand gathering. Through the kind providence of a gracious God we are here. Our purpose is well defined. We are here for a definite end. We are here not only to set forth principles of the gospel of Christ, but we are here to expose error. Our task is therefore positive and negative in its nature. Truth must be affirmed and error must be denied. There is no such thing as merely preaching an af-firmative gospel. The gospel of Christ is in opposition to everything that is opposed to it. Our duty, then, is to teach the truth and expose error, exhort people to believe and obey the truth and to turn from error. The apostle said, "Preach the word: reprove, rebuke, and exhort." Occasionally I find people who seem to think that passage ought to read, "Exhort, exhort, exhort." That passage says, "Reprove, rebuke, and exhort." No preacher can be true to the gospel of Christ who does not do this. We are here for that purpose.

Now I read to you from 1 Timothy 4. "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall de-part from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. If thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained."

The apostle names two things here that the Spirit ex-pressly (that is, very definitely) says: First, there would be


a departure from the faith; second, the departure would consist in the flagrant disregard for the truth by those giving heed to seducing spirits. There have never been greater seducers than the pontiffs of the Roman hierarchy. They are seducing spirits, and their encyclicals are doctrines of demons. The decrees of Rome are of that source. "Forbidding to marry"-an ecclesiasticism which forbids marriage. "To abstain from meats"-another decree identifying the character of an apostate institution in ecclesiastical departure from the faith. The apostles of Christ warned against certain ecclesi-astical errors which inspiration knew were in the offing, and which would rise up to shackle and fetter the spirits of men, enslaving them to human authority and tyranny in religion.



Roman Catholicism was viewed from two points last evening: The development of the Holy Roman Empire, then the "Holy Roman Catholic Church," so-called. The Holy Roman Empire was the political institution that came into being under the rule of the emperors. The Roman em-perors became the head of the church. The people believed that the Roman Empire itself was holy, and there was a sanctity that belonged to the emperor. During that time the popes themselves were having trouble maintaining their authority over the church because of their subservience and subjection to the emperor. Then alternately the emperor became subject to the pope. The "see-saw" in history in papal and imperial ambitions for ecclesiastical domination-who would be supreme, the emperor or the pope. The contest culminated in the abdication of the emperor, and hence terminated in the end of the Holy Roman Empire. When the emperor abdicated his throne and surrendered his imperial title-that was the end of the Holy Roman Empire.

Another period in the history of things was called "The Great Interregnum." It was that period of time during which no pope was on the throne-a period of seventy years when "the church" had no head. It was a headless institution for three score years and ten. Hence, a generation lived and died without a pope. He must not be indispensable.

If you want to read the history of abomination and crime in the realm of religion, read the history of ecclesiastical Rome, from the crowning of Boniface III in 606 A. D. to the syllabus of Pius IX in 1870, declaring against freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, giving all temporal power and the full and complete direction of the state, the school, the home, and the church to the pope of Rome on his Vatican throne. I read to you last night the eighty articles of that syllabus issued by the pope for no other purpose than to pave the way for him to restore his lost temporal power, that he might once more sway the sceptre of temporal rule over all the nations of the earth.

It so happened that the first test of the decree of infalli-bility in the syllabus of Pius IX came very shortly after that syllabus went into effect. The armies of Napoleon marched against the pope. Italy joined forces against the pope in an effort to restore her own temporal dominion. The armies of the pope were defeated. He had actually put armies into the field to fight in the name of the church to uphold his temporal power and sovereignty. But when the armies of the pope were defeated the white flag was raised by the pope himself, the white flag of surrender, and the pope went into voluntary exile, prisoner of his own choice, living in a palace of eleven thousand apartments, in the luxury of kings; living even yet in greater luxury than any king or potentate of earth today, playing the role of a martyr to hold the sympathies of the Catholic world with one thing in view: To come out of that Vatican one day possessing all temporal and spiritual power over all nations of the earth.

Is that a mere notion of mine? Let me read it to you, the proof, from Catholic authority. Civilta Cattolica, that is,


"Catholic Civilization," was the official organ of the pope of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church to set forth the reasons for the syllabus, and to be used as propaganda for the dogma of the infallibility of the pope as ratified by the Council of Trent in 1870.

Now that particular Catholic organ made the bold state-ment that "Rome is to receive the pope back at the point of the bayonet." It was after the armies of the pope had been defeated, and he had retired to the Vatican in voluntary exile, that the statement was issued by Civilta Cattolica, that though the pope had been taken from Rome, or Rome had been taken from the pope, and Italy had established again her own temporal sovereignty, "Rome is to receive the pope back at the point of the bayonet." In other words, the pope fully expected then, and fully expects now, sometime in the future to wage a bloody war to restore his temporal power. He expects to do it through other nations, but he expects to do it, neverthe-less. Here is the declaration of that Catholic organ for it: "The whole world is yet to accept his reign"-the reign of the pope-also at the point of the bayonet, unless the nations bow the neck and lick the dust "where marches the vicar of God."

Utterances like that make the blood of righteous people boil, that in the name of religion and in the name of the church one who claims to be the vicar of God should, through his political and official organs, announce such dastardly policies and heinous designs.

The pope fell from his temporal throne. No nation sub-mitted to his code, nor revised its own code to fit that syllabus. That syllabus was for the purpose of regaining the temporal power of the pope. Yet it did not go into effect at any time or place or to any extent at all anywhere. No nation ever bowed to it. Not one nation ever submitted its own code to revision under it. Not one kingdom of earth ever installed a ruler to reign under the laws of that syllabus. The pope went down in defeat under his own syllabus. Yet he claims


to be the infallible vicar of God. When that syllabus was issued the rulers of the nations knew that they must march against him, else he would seize every nation of the earth and bring them under his power. To destroy the menace of that syllabus they must destroy the power of the pope, first over Italy itself, and thus save the other nations of the world.

The pope went into exile, and through his official organ announced that Rome will receive the pope again as its temporal head at the point of the bayonet. That is the doctrine of Rome, and "Rome never changes," you know. Let that syllabus go into effect, which is still the purpose of the Roman Catholic Church, if and when it should become effective, their "internal tribunal" would be seated in every church, in every place, in every capital, in every home, and the authority of the pope would take immediate and final precedence over all local law. Their "external tribunal," as they call it, would be seated in every city with the headship of the Roman bishop over all civil and military law, and every civil magistrate from the justice of the peace to the Supreme Court of the United States would be subject to the law of the pope-the syllabus of Pius IX.

Now those are terrible facts to contemplate, but they are facts, actual facts.

Having established connection with the argument where we left it last night, I am ready to examine the organization of the Roman church.



Roman Catholic propaganda follows an established pattern wherever it appears, the assumption that it is the original and visible church of Christ on earth.

(1) Its existence explained.

I quote from "The Visible Church," published by the authority of and for the Catholic Church, for a textbook in


Catholic schools and colleges. In the preface of it the author stated that it was not a textbook for beginners, but a text-book for advanced students in Catholic colleges. So it is an authority in the Catholic world. Here is the definition it gives of the Catholic church: "The Catholic Church is a visible church, a society among men instituted by God and wor-shipping him by external observances which have developed into a complex ritual." ("The Visible Church," preface, p. 7)

Do you get the significance of that? Right there is the admission, a self-imposed admission, that the Roman Catholic Church is a human organization. Though he says it was instituted by God, he contradicts the assertion in his next utterance in the admission that they worship God in external observances which have developed into a complex ritual. In other words, the observances of the Roman Catholic Church have "developed" through the years. That development spells the human character of their system. If their ordinances were scriptural and the New Testament taught them, ordinances to be found in the word of God, the New Testament, they would not have "developed" into a "complex ritual." The New Testament is not a complex ritual, and anything taught in the New Testament cannot be a development larger than the New Testament.

(2) Not of Bible origin.

Read this from the same authority: "Its ceremonies are the growth of centuries," and, "the essentials of our church's worship have been embellished with a wealth of ritual practices of which each detail is symbolic of the purpose for which that worship is offered." (Visible Church, p. 7) So, since the New Testament was written the worship has been embellished by ritualistic practices of their own human organization, and that by their own admission.

Again: The same authority, "The Visible Church," "a manual for advanced students" in Catholic schools, explains the why of her services, sacraments, ceremonies, and symbols, and when they were introduced: "The essentials of our church's worship have been embellished with a wealth of ritual practices of which each detail is symbolic of the purpose for which that worship is offered." (Page vii) He tells Catholic students "why" they have those sacraments and "when" they were introduced. Well, if they were introduced in the New Testa-ment he would not have to tell us when, and if found in the Bible that would be the "why." His own expression, "Why the church sanctifies this or that and calls it sacramental and when she began to do so," exposes the Catholic church as a human organization, originating centuries this side of the New Testament. Ladies and gentlemen, if you have any respect for the word of God, and want to belong to a thing that is supported and sustained by the word of God, would you join an organization that admits the human origin of its organization and that its doctrine and practices, including their whole system of sacraments and sacramentals, were developed long after the Bible was written, completed and handed to the world? Anybody who has respect for the word of God, who desires to belong to a scriptural institution, will drop the Roman Catholic Church from consideration right here, and go not one step further with it.

(3) Their declaration of aims.

The United States is declared to be the choice missionary field for the Roman Catholic Church. Its campaign is di-rected from Rome and through secret agencies. The Jesuits were expelled from nearly every country of Europe some years ago, and they turned to the Western Hemisphere. The Jesuits are a secret society of the Roman Catholics. Bishop Ireland, an authority in the Roman Catholic Church, said, "The great work Catholics are called upon to do within the coming century is to make America Catholic." He made that statement at the centenary celebration of the Catholic church. Cardinal Manning said, "The Catholic church is either the masterpiece of Satan, or it is the kingdom of the Son of God." That is Cardinal Manning talking. Cardinal


Newman said, "The church of Rome is either the house of God or the house of Satan; there is no middle ground between them." All right, Cardinal: If the church of Rome is the church of God, we want to know it, and if the pope is in-fallible we want to know it. Conversely, if the Roman Catholic Church is the house of Satan and the pope is Anti-christ, her doctrine human and her system an enemy of liberty and government, let that be known.

(4) The political aspect.

Denouncing our Bible, the Roman church has promoted union of church and state; drawn heavily on our state treasuries; monopolized funds donated to religious bodies; subsidized the public press; manipulated political conven-tions; ruled large cities; placed her men in key positions in Washington, officers in charge of the Army and Navy, and judges on the bench; muzzled the mouth of statesmen, editors, and preachers; has plotted to destroy our government, and required her subjects to swear allegiance to a foreign power.

Archbishop Ireland said, 'She has the power to speak; organization by which her lawsmay be enforced ...She is the sole living and enduring Christian authority." Should not such an institution be restrained? The preservation of America and human liberty, as well as the authority of the Bible, are at stake.

(5) The religious aspect.

The United States has been a paradise for the pope. Though seated in Rome, he has without interference imposed his own dogmas, founded on pretended infallibility. He has burdened millions of our people with masses, the confessional, priesthood, celibacy, fears of purgatory, all of which are more fit for pagan ignorance and darkness than consistent with gospel light and knowledge. The Roman Catholic church never was, is not, and never will be the church of Christ. It is an apostasy from the faith, a parasite of pagan paternity, arrogating to itself the right to violate all of the laws of God and man, to dominate nations, claiming to hold the keys of heaven and of hell, and asserting the power to save men or damn men at her own will, and at the decision of the pope. Therefore, the axe must be laid at the root of the corrupt tree bringing forth its evil fruits, and it must be hewed down.

In spite of all this, there are thousands of men and women identified with the Catholic church who are sincere, innocent, and unsuspecting people of the laity-good citizens, good neighbors, and we make no attack on them as individuals. We are dealing out indictments against a system, and its perverse practices and pernicious principles.



The organization of the Catholic church falls in ten branches.

(1) The Hierarchy. The word "hierarchy" is from the Greek, meaning,

"priestly rule," the rule or government of priests, all grades and forms of the clergy.

a. The hierarchy of order, which has to do with public worship and the administrational sacraments.

b. The hierarchy of jurisdiction, which has to do with power to make laws over the church and to rule society, both religious and temporal.

(2) The Pope. He is the head, the supreme ruler, and claims to derive

his power from no man, from no set of men, from no council, but from God, and he decides the extent of that.

a. His powers: He is responsible to no human being, and to no set of human beings in the exercise of his power. He makes laws, he inflicts censures, he absolves sin, he excom-municates, he creates religious orders, dioceses, dispenses vows, infallible in faith, in morals, in philosophy, in doctrine, and even in thought, who speaks without error or the possibility


of error. He is a monarch, a sovereign, both temporal and spiritual. That is the place the pope holds in the hierarchy of the Roman church.

b. His titles: First, "pope," from the Latin "papa," a child-hood word for father. In other words, he claims to be sov-ereign father. Second, "pontiff" from the Latin "pontifex," meaning originally, "a bridge builder." The Roman ponti-fexes guarded the bridges over the Tiber entering into and coming out of the city of Rome. Nobody could enter or exit Rome without the authority of the pontifex. So when the pope assumed all authority temporal and spiritual, he adopted the name "pontiff," sovereign pontiff, signifying all authority. Third, "holy father," from the Latin "beatissime pater." It means that the pope claims to be the holy father. Fourth, "the servant of the servants of God, from the Latin, "Servus Servorum Dei," that is, the pre-eminent servant of God, above all the servants of God. His name is selected after he is elected by the cardinals. He chooses the name of pope before him, whose life he admires, whose position and office he him-self would like to imitate, and calls himself by the name of that former pope. His government is at Rome, and is called the "Holy See," from the Latin "sedes," which means "a seat" *-holy seat! Now all of that is found on one of the blank pages in your Bible.

(3) The Cardinals. They are next to the pope in the hierarchy. The word comes from the Latin "cardo," which means, "a hinge." The cardinals are hinges-the pope swings on them. The college of cardinal is the swinging door to the pope. He swings in, but he does not swing out. The committees of the cardinals from congregations represent the tribunals. As a body, the sacred college, or college of cardinals, is not to exceed seventy in number. Italians are greatly in the majority. It is definitely Roman in complex and in composition. Cardinals were first

known in the tenth century-one thousand years too late to be a Bible institution.

(4) TheRoman Curia. It is composed of committees of cardinals, forming twelve congregations. First, the Sacred Consistory to form dioceses and appoint bishops. Second, the Inquisition, to judge heresies, and indulgences, and books. Third, The Sacred Rites, for regulating ceremonies. Fourth, The Council, for matters of discipline and matrimony. Fifth, The Congregation of Propaganda, for spreading Catholicism in non-Catholic coun-tries. They actually have an office of Propaganda belonging to the organization of the Roman Catholic Church! I have heard that word "propaganda" before. I think the Nazis had

a Minister of Propaganda, one Dr. Josef Goebbels. You would have to address him on an asbestos card now!

What Bible chapter refers to that list of offices and or-ganizations included in the Roman Coo-ree-ah?

(5) The Roman Tribunals. These are Roman Catholic courts for judging crime and giving absolution from censures and remission from indul-gences. First, The Rota, which means, "the wheel." It is composed of twelve members. It is called "Rota" because the members are seated in a circle, examining in turn matters sub-mitted to them. Second, The Signature, another Catholic court for the consideration of appeals and petitions. It in-cludes a Secretary of State, patterned after a political govern-

ment more than a church of New Testament description. Such nomenclature is wholly foreign to the Bible.

(6) Apostolic Legates.

This office consists of a group of representatives of the pope to the governments of the earth.

First, the legate, an ambassador to various capitals where the papal government is recognized. Second, the apostolic delegates, the representatives of the pope himself, the most important is the pope's representative in the U. S. A., to whom the pope delegated special power to decide certain matters without referring to Rome. So we have a Roman Catholic


with the authority of a pope over here in this country. The Bible is as silent on such officers as it is on the presidency, priesthood, and apostleship of the Mormon church, or the miniature Vatican in Salt Lake City. It is just a little one in Salt Lake, but a big one in Rome.

(7) The Councils.

These organizations of Rome are the assemblies of Bishops. First, the general council. They are few and far between. Bishops from all over the world are summoned by the pope, laws are enacted, doctrines are defined, subject to the pope's approval, so why call them? There have been only twenty general councils in the history of the Catholic church. Second, the plenary council, meaning, "full and sufficient," making laws for a territory or a nation. Third, provincial councils, composed of bishops of a province, to make local laws, a sort of local option! What a man-made system that is! It can be plainly seen, friends, why the Bible has been proscribed by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Proscribed, mark you, not prescribed. That means the Bible is "taboo" with the Roman Catholics. They could not begin to start to commence to find their organizational system in the Bible. They found it out of the Bible, to be sure, not in it.

The plenary council originated in 1869 in Baltimore. It urged all bishops to "keep away from their flocks all Bibles corrupted by non-Catholics." This bull of excommunication of Pius IX issued in 1869 reads: "We excommunicate and anathematize all Lutherans, Calvinists, and all heretics by whatever name they are called ...together with all who, without authority of the Holy See, shall knowingly read, keep, or print any of their books which treat on religion, or by or for any cause whatever, publicly or privately on any pretense or color defend them."

The Council of Tolosa forbade the laity to possess either the old or new testament in the vernacular idiom. The laity might possess Catholic books, but no Bible.

The Council of Trent declared: "If the holy Bible, trans-lated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to everyone, the temerity of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it . . . If anyone shall have presumption to read it or possess it without written permission (of priest or bishop) he shall not receive absolution till he have first delivered up such Bible to the Ordinary." The hierarchy of Rome did not authorize a copy of the Bible in English until forced to do so, and now it proscribes and restricts the use of it. The pope, the bishops, and the priests stand between the Bible and the people! Jesus said, "Ye have one that judges you, even the word that I have spoken unto you." But Roman Catholicism teaches that we are judged by popes, councils, bishops, and the hierarchy. Jesus said, "Search the scriptures." But Rome proscribes it, excom-municates, and anathematizes those who read or possess it!

But certain laws enacted by these councils are regional, and Catholics in one nation or territory will have laws to which Catholics in another nation are not subject. A develop-ment into "a complex ritual" indeed!

(8) The Episcopacy. The episcopacy has to do with a region or a territory, governed by a bishop. They fall into two classes: bishops and archbishops. In "Visible Church," page 10, by J. F. Sullivan, authorized and published by the Roman Catholic Church for a textbook in their own schools and colleges, we find this statement: "Their authority comes from the Lord himself, for he instituted not only the papacy but the episcopacy." So any Roman bishop or priest in the com-munity claims to get his authority direct from the God of heaven, and he is amenable to no man save the pope. It is a corruption of the New Testament idea of bishops, or elders, in every church. The New Testament provides for bishops and elders in each congregation-a plurality of bishops

in every church, not a plurality of churches under one bishop, but a plurality of elders in every church.


(9) The Prelates.

This is a class elevated by the pope to the rank above the ordinary clergy. First, the monsignor, meaning, "my lord." That is what it means, and they live up to the name. They are lords over the people. Second, the prelate, meaning, "placed over others." Third, the priest, meaning, supposedly, "an elder." Fourth, the clergy, pastors or rectors-the local rulers of the flock. Fifth, the chaplain, a priest in charge of a chapel for spiritual care of soldiers. Thus they get into the armies of the nation. While wars are being won they are trying to win one for the Catholic church, do not forget that!

(10) Religious Orders. These organizations in the Catholic Church are societies bound by vows. They become both part and parcel of the Roman Catholic organization. They are too many to enumer-ate in detail. But there are, first, the orders of men: The Benedictines, the Augustinians, the Franciscans, the Do-minicans, the Redemptarists, the Cistercians (sounds like the name of a flower, but is anything else but), Passionists, Jesuits, Christian Brothers, Paulists, Carmelites, Sulpicians, Fathers of the Holy Spirit, Oblate Fathers of Mary Im-

maculate, Society of Mary, and Congregation of the Holy Cross.

In addition to that array of male orders they have secret organizations of women, female orders, who take the vows of poverty, of chastity, and of obedience to the priest. Every woman or girl who enters a nunnery, and every woman or girl who takes the vows of the Roman Catholic church, makes herself absolutely obedient in every detail, in every command, to a Catholic priest. Once cloistered, she cannot leave the limits of the convent without a cause approved by the priest or bishop. An unmarried man with such powers over in-nocent girls, who impulsively take vows of that sort and go into convents to become nuns, is an abomination of hell, and its cry reaches to heaven. To tell you the whole truth in-volves things that cannot be printed or spoken. It is recorded that a printer in England undertook to print some of them and was put in jail for the language that he had to use to tell the truth about it. There are twenty-one orders and societies of women, bound by superstition, rules, and habits of Romanism. Here is a total of thirty-eight human organiza-tions founded by fanatics of the medieval ages, bound by vows, taken on the pain of mortal sin if broken-an unpardonable sin to break them-making up the orders of the religious life of the Roman Catholic church, not one of which, from the first to the last of all thirty-eight, is mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

Friends, it presents a bad picture. But it is the sordid de-scription of the Roman Catholic church. IV


The legendary claim called the "Petrine tradition" is the fundamental basis of the whole papal structure. Summed up in three main points it may be stated as follows: 1. Peter was appointed by Christ to be his chief representative and succes-sor, and head of his church; 2. Peter went to Rome and founded the bishopric there; and 3. Peter's successors suc-ceeded to his prerogatives, and to all the authority implied thereby. On these points I propose to offer proof that these Romish claims are a dogmatic theology and are not history, nor based on any fact of history.

(1) There is no contemporary evidence of these Petrine claims.

The first one to make the claim that the Roman church was founded by Peter and Paul was Dionysius of Corinth-170

A.D. This is a long way from contemporary evidence and is merely the assertion of the man without proof to sustain his opinion. From the viewpoint of Romanists themselves they have here a problem that can never be solved, for tra-dition in the very nature of things is not contemporary evi-


dence and can never be so accepted. The Petrine tradition therefore can never be settled, so far as historical evidence is concerned, by the Roman Catholic themselves. In their own dealings with this issue the Roman Catholics have crossed the border line of historical evidence into the realm of Roman Catholic theology. This is a fact to such extent that even one eminent Catholic theologian said: "It would be believed even if time and accident had destroyed all original evidence therefor." This declaration can only mean that Catholics accept the Petrine tradition as a tenet of faith without the support of contemporary history.

(2) There is no line of succession upon which to base the Petrine claim.

In an effort to a succession of popes from Peter, Catholics are forced to trace what they term the "bishopric" back through a line of local bishops, who were no more than local elders in churches. They depend on random sentences and incidental allusions to bishops of the churches from the second century to the fourth century, until they find one who claimed for himself a supremacy over other bishops and asserted that in his own person he was an heir to Peter's imaginary chair. The apocryphal achievements of these early bishops, their spurious acts and decrees, and miracles attributed to them, were inventions of their own purported to be acts of Peter to enhance popular reverence from the people for themselves.

The famous annunciation of Leo on the Petrine supremacy, quoted in many text-books, were only the repetitions of the enunciations of various predecessors before him. All of these declarations, well-known and familiar to students, of papal power from the fifth to the ninth centuries, are based upon the same fundamental theory.

(3) There are no inferences to be drawn from any New Testament passage as evidence for the Petrine claim.

The New Testament existed before the Roman See. The Roman hierarchy is therefore a later development. A survey of the New Testament, which was completed before the hierarchy of Rome was formed, has always revealed the deadly damaging fact that it was of no use as documentary proof of the later claims of the Roman See. Their claim therefore on the face of it, in the very term "Petrine tradition," is a tacit admission of this fact and brands the whole Roman Catholic system as a human tradition, and as the grossest appropriation of unscriptural prerogatives in their assumptions of papal powers. No hierarchical system dominated apostolic, sub-apostolic or immediate post-apostolic ages. This is a fact sup-ported by the archives of history.

The functions of overseers, elders, bishops as local officials in the churches were all well-defined. The New Testament calls for "elders in every church" and they were not Roman priests. Ecclesiastical organization was a growth and is not therefore of scriptural origin.

A casual examination of the so-called "Petrine texts" will show that Catholics have attempted to draw inferences from supposed implications that are not in these texts at all. Let me cite here a few examples of their methods of deduction- rather efforts at extraction-from certain passages their tra-ditions.

1. The reference in Matt. 10 to the calling of the twelve names Peter first, and they claim that this implies a rank above the other apostles.

But if the order of mention means rank, then Andrew ranks above James! Rather a slim "inference" upon which to base such a preponderant claim, or better-styled, such a preposterous assumption.

2. The claim that in Matt. 16:18 Jesus makes Peter the rock, or foundation, of the church.

But the argument turns on the personal pronoun "thou" and the adjective "this." The Lord said: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock"-"thou" art Peter, and upon "this" rock.


It is evident that thou referred to Peter and this referred to something else. In Matt. 18:18 the same charge was given to all the twelve without regard to any special primacy of one. And in Matt. 19:27-28 Jesus told the twelve that in the gospel dispensation they would all occupy thrones of authority judg-ing the twelve tribes (the whole church)-by their apostolic word-and this language of Jesus carries the implication of equality in office and authority of all the apostles with no primacy vested in any of them. Furthermore, the Great Commission, containing the closing words of Jesus in his final orders to the apostles, holds no intimation of primacy-they all were equal in power and mission.

3. The charge to Peter to confirm the brethren, in Lk. 22:24-32, it is claimed conferred upon him a singular mission and entrusted to him a sole power.

Aside from being a mere assertion such an assumption contradicts verses 24 to 30 in which the Lord plainly taught them that there would be no primacy among them, such as lords among the Gentile authorities and powers. And instead of Peter performing the chief role in the work of strengthening the church, it appears in Gal. 2 that it was necessary for Paul to rebuke and strengthen Peter.

1. The view that the special appearance of Jesus to Simon mentioned at the close of Luke's gospel (Lk. 24:33-34) has special significance. But the singular mention of these appearances to Peter, and other such instances of special men-tion, are evidently due rather to Peter's weakness and wavering than to any primacy or precedence bestowed upon him.

2. The claim that the direct command of Jesus to Peter to "feed my sheep," at the end of John's gospel (Jno. 21:15-17), exalts Peter and singles him out for supremacy.

This is one of the best examples of the methods of forced interpretations put upon passages of scripture by Roman Catholics for arbitrary support of their traditions. If taken literally, as asserted, it gives to Simon Peter alone the pre-rogative of feeding the sheep, and excludes all the other apostles from the right to do so. Taken allegorically, as it should be taken, the stain of the three-fold denial of Jesus by Peter previously is here wiped out by the three-fold acknowl-edgment, with the three-fold opportunity to affirm three times his special love. And the ignominy of the failure to "follow" Christ, as pledged in Matt. 19:27 should be atoned for in his old age by the manner of death that he should die, as set forth in the same setting of Jno. 21:19. But in all the allegory of this narrative there is not one hint of Peter's primacy-rather, to the contrary, it was a scene of humiliation to Peter than an occasion of exaltation.

6. Grouping a series of references Catholics claim that Peter took the initiative in the selection of a successor of Judas; that he was the speaker of Pentecost; that John was secondary to him in various instances where the two are mentioned together (Acts 3-4); that there was virtue in his shadow (Acts 5:15); that the contributions of the Jerusalem church were laid at his feet, and that Peter exercised power to discipline Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5); that in the extension of the gospel to Samaria Peter leads (Acts 8); and again to him was given the prerogative of rebuking and rejecting Simon Magus (Acts 8); and, finally, that he went to Jerusalem not to see the other apostles, but to see Peter.

Such are the texts that Roman Catholics rely upon for the Petrine claim. To a Roman Catholic, in all of these passages Simon Peter looms, but to any unbiased reader of the New Testament, it is merely a matter of emphasis con-nected with certain circumstances in the various cases. John is associated with the same prominence in other places and circumstances; and Paul even soars far above Peter, even to the exercising of the authority to rebuke and excoriate him in a publicly administered reprimand. As for the virtue of Peter's shadow cast over the multitude as he passed, the same degree


of efficacy was ascribed to Paul at Lystra (Acts 14) and on the island of Melita (Acts 28). In the extension of Christi-anity mentioned in Acts 8, Philip preceded him there, and he exercised no higher authority in his rebuke of Simon Magus than Paul exercised in the rebuke administered to Elymas (Acts 13:7-11), in the case of Sergius Paulus the pro-counsul. As for Paul's trip to Jerusalem to see Peter, his own explanation of that personal incident assigns to it no such purpose, importance or significance which Roman Catholics attempt to attach to it, but to the contrary, eloquent silence of the latter part of Acts to such claims as Roman Catholicism makes for Peter's primacy rather subordinates Petrine primacy to Pauline prominence! The grouping of such references to Simon Peter in these more or less incidental allusions of the New Testament are but admissions of inadequacy in the proof of their claims, and reduces the Petrine argument to nothing.

(4) There is no biblical evidence of Peter's residence in Rome.

The Petrine tradition rests upon the Roman Catholic claim that Peter went to Rome, founded the church in Rome, and established the Roman bishopric there. Against this Contention let us pit a few indubitable facts.

1. Peter was not in Rome when Paul wrote the epistle of Romans to the church at Rome.

The Roman letter was addressed "to all that be in Rome . . . called to be saints." In this letter he mentions himself; Timothy, his fellow-worker; Lucius, Jason and Sosipater, his kinsmen; Tertius, his amanuensis; Gaius, his host; Erastus, the treasurer of the city, and a brother named Quartus, all joining with him in the greetings of this letter to twenty-six prominent members of the church in Rome, who are men-tioned by name in chapter 16, without the slightest reference to Peter. If Peter resided in Rome, and was the head of the church in Rome, is it conceivable that Paul would have men-


tioned all these other prominent names and eminent persons, and ignored Peter completely? That would not have been a matter of simply slighting a fellow apostle-it would have been insulting the pope! And such could hardly be chalked up as an oversight on the part of the inspired apostle Paul. It is evident that Peter was not in Rome when Paul wrote the Roman letter. But the church at Rome was in existence at that time, and functioning as an established church of Christ.

Furthermore, the first chapter of Romans sets forth Paul's reasons for writing the epistle to the church at Rome, and expressed his deep-felt desire to impart spiritual gifts unto them. Would this not have been wholly presumptuous and altogether gratuitous on the part of Paul if Peter the pope had been right there in the midst of the church at Rome as its founder and head?

2. Peter was not in Rome when Paul was a prisoner there and wrote letters from Rome to churches in various parts of the world.

The epistles of Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colos-sians, Second Timothy and Philemon, were all written from Rome, by Paul, without reference to Peter. In these epistles he mentioned many individuals, including members of the church at Rome, and Christians in Caesar's household, but not once referred to Peter, nor left the slightest hint from which an inference can be extracted that Peter was in Rome, had been there, was on the way, being looked for, or ever expected to come there. This is not only passingly strange, if Peter resided in Rome, founded the church there and became its head-it is positively inconceivable and absolutely un-thinkable.

The Petrine tradition is worse than a mere claim, and "tradition" is too mild a label for it-it is one of the most monstrously fabricated falsehoods known to the world.

3. The salutation of Peter from the church at Babylon is not a greeting of Peter from Rome.

It is claimed by Roman Catholics that Babylon in 1 Pet.

5:13 is a figurative reference to Rome, and that Peter wrote this epistle from Rome, sending greetings from Rome as did Paul. But Peter did not say Rome, as Paul did. When Paul sent greetings from Rome, he said so; if Peter was in Rome sending greetings, why did he not say so; why did he say Babylon; There can be no reason for the use of a figure of speech here or to employ figurative language. It would be a trope altogether out of harmony with the context.

There was a Babylon in both Egypt and Assyria. And there were good reasons for Peter to visit the Jews of the dispersion in Babylon of Assyria. In the light of 1 Pet: 1:1 it appears entirely reasonable that the apostle Peter should go on a mission to the east in the interest of Jewish Christians in those parts. Though ancient Babylon was deserted, it is nevertheless true that many Christian Jews of the dispersion were scattered throughout the province of Babylon. Such eminent scholars as Charles Wordsworth and Philip Schaff, and others no less noteworthy, add their testimony to this fact. The Bible itself offers such evidence, a notable instance of which is the second chapter of Acts, where it is stated that on the Day of Pentecost there were among the Jews present Parthians, Medes and Mesopotamians, all from the neighborhood of Babylon. It is as reasonable that Peter would go to these people to confirm them in the faith as it is that he should go anywhere else for like purposes. There is therefore no reason to assume that he did not mean Babylon in 1 Pet. 5:13 where he said Babylon. But there can be seen special reason why he should write to the dispersed church from such a place of the dispersion. By so doing he carried the gospel to eastern limits of the Roman empire.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that Rome had become currently known among Christians as Babylon at this or any other early date. All other geographical designations were literal, as in chapter 1, verse 1, and in all other epistles, where references are made to Rome it is called Rome, excepting the


Apocalypse alone, where the symbolic is general usage. But in the epistle of Peter the writing is not of that type and the figurative term would be out of harmony with the context.

As a final word on this point, I want to quote the eminent scholar, Philip Schaff, president of the Revision Committee of our New Testament, recognized the world over for his in-tegrity as a scholar and a critical exegete. In his comments on 1 Pet: 5:13 he says: "The Jewish population in Babylon (as well as the heathen) at this time was considerable; so many historians have rightly held Babylon in this passage to be literal Babylon of Assyria."

Such testimony as this crumbles the Roman Catholic claim that no literal Babylon existed and that Peter therefore was in Rome when he wrote the first epistle of Peter. It will re-quire more than tradition, propped up by the bald assertions of Roman prelates to sustain the Petrine claim.

(5) There is no historical proof of Peter's residence or presence in the city of Rome.

In the mass of accumulative documents on this point there are volumes of material, but in the midst of it all one thing stands out: the fatal admission that the historical evidence is in the final analysis traditional.

I wish here to submit a summary of this admission from the authoritative work entitled The See of Peter, by James T. Shotwell, Professor of History, in Columbia University.

1. The fact of Peter's presence in Rome, if it could be established, would not imply that he founded the Roman church or that he was the bishop of it. (Page 59)

2. As to the position of Peter in Rome, the answer of both the documentary texts and the traditions is open to diverse interpretation, even among those who insist that he was there. If limited to the texts it cannot be known what Peter did in Rome or what functions he performed. (Page 60)


1. Not until the year 354 A. D. was Peter styled the first bishop of Rome. Before that time no reference can be found in any of the early writings to such a designation or title assigned to Peter. (Page 61)

2. The chronology has always presented insoluble diffi-culties, and the tradition, "such as it is," taken in conjunction with the New Testament texts, is held questionable at the very best, and that extremely questionable tradition is the foundation on which the papacy rests. (Page 65)

3. Regarding the whole thing, "it was never more than a meagre tradition." (Page 66)

4. The evidence from such writings as Clement, upon which stress has been placed, "is utterly vague," and the same is true of Dionysius, Ignatius, Phlegon and Papias. The at-tempt to find evidence among these early writers is but an example of "confusing incidents" and seizing upon certain "indirect statements" which contain no conclusive proof. Even Dionysius in 170 A. D., who makes the earliest state-ment on record, avers that the matter "is too vague to be insisted upon," and he leaves it all in the realm of the tra-ditional and without proof. Eusebius, at this point, abandons history and simply records tradition, not history, on the Petrine claim. Irenaeus, in his defense against innovations, employed traditions of the apostolic episcopate, but without authentication by a single line of history. Their stories and traditions are called "floating hearsay or legend" and alto-gether "uncertain." (Pages 67 to 79)

5. It is further shown that Eusebius refers to the "names" and "trophies" of Peter and Paul, preserved in "cemeteries" in Rome, but finds no evidence of their bodies. (Page 83)

6. It is also stated that Tertullian "enlarged upon the theory enunciated by Irenaeus," but his "anecdotes and tra-ditions" being at the time "unquestioned," regarding them "it was unnecessary to re-enforce by proofs" these anecdotes


and stories and traditions. (Page 86) Here is the fatal ad-mission that there is no proof for these claims in existence!

1. A series of admissions are then summarized: Eusebius made "an effort to fix" the time of Peter's "sojourn at Rome"; Hippolytus "appears to imply" that Peter was in Rome "when Simon Magus presented himself there" etc; the writings represent arguments over "rather vague phrases" and "these ambiguous passages" in the ancient documents, so that the argument means nothing, for nowhere can they "find warrant for bestowing on Peter the formal title of bishop." (Pages 98-99)

2. The Liber Pontificalis, the oldest history of the Papacy, put together by an unknown member of the Roman Curia in the sixth or seventh century, "was a strange composite of authentic record, embellished tradition, and downright fabri-cation," and the account of Peter was "quite mythical, based upon the apocryphal histories." (Page 102) Here is the deadly admission that their oldest evidence is neither authentic nor reliable!

3. A chronographer of 354 A. D., an unknown compiler relied on by the Catholics, deals in "shadowy tradition" and "imagination" and "goes so far in zeal to bring Peter to Rome" that his efforts result in "thus outdoing even Eusebius and contradicting utterly the testimony of the Book of Acts." (Page 105)

4. The claims of various other writers are branded as "excessive even for that credulous age." Jerome's life of Peter was an evolution concerning the career of Peter with which the accepted tradition assumed its final shape. The "apocryphal" a "was at best a meagre one," and "it was inevitable that devout imagination should soon set to work around his name." The growth of the papal prestige was based on a literature which was realized to be "as a whole a web of falsehood." (Pages 11-122). Thus again are the significant admissions that their


records and trophies are too late and can be called nothing else than plain deception, and their claims which were too "excessive" for even that age of credulity are therefore simply false; and their traditions of Peter being in the form of "evolution" can only mean a gradual growth of unreliable stories, which puts the whole papal prestige on the basis of the preposterous.

In the third century "side by side with legends of Peter at Rome was rising a network of fabrication woven about his career before his journey to Rome" (Page 158), all of which was legend and fabrication according to this weighty admission from this authoritative source.

In the fourth and fifth centuries there are to be found "unquestionable expansions and revisions of the legends" that originated earlier, referred to as "a crop of primitive tales" (Page 168), and reference is made to the effect of such wide-spread legends" and the attempt to account for the rise of the Petrine See to its final pre-eminence." The legend of Peter was "substantiated" by such "concrete and tangible evidence" as in relics "such as drops of Mary's milk, and wine of Cana, and crowns of thorns, and winding cloths from the holy sepulchre"-and so the "legend of Peter" was "confirmed"(?) by such "memorials" which are put on exhibition to pilgrims to this day! (Page 201) Thus the subject of the Petrine Tradition drops to the level of folk-lore and superstition, un-worthy of a serious historian or investigator.

(.6) There is no biblical nor historical evidence for the Liberian Catalogue of succession.

Having shown by the documentary chronicles that the gradual growth of the Petrine Tradition lacks the credentials of both biblical and secular history, let us look into some of the later claims for what is known as the See of Peter.

1. The Liberian Catalogue is a list of Roman bishops which forms the so-called line of popes from Peter to Liberius-a compendium of 354 A. D. attempting to show documentary


proof for the claims of apostolic succession made by the Catholic church.

2. The Catalogue is named for the bishop under whom it was produced and has no value even as a record after the third century.

This catalogue was edited and re-edited at the hands of its promoters and continuators before taking the final form in which is now exists. Not until about the time of this catalogue-354 A. D.-was Peter himself assigned the title of the first bishop of Rome. It was therefore a posthumous title in the episcopal line, without the sanction of scripture and without the warrant of authenticated history.

3. The so-called See of Peter was only one among many sects and schools with headquarters at Rome.

By copious quotations from the authoritative work, The See Of Peter, by Shotwell and Loomis, of Columbia Uni-versity, we have shown that the primacy of Peter is admittedly a tradition. A similar review of the documentary evidence will show that the See of Peter, the whole structure of Roman Catholicism, rests on no higher authority than the tradition itself, and is not supported by a syllable of scripture nor a line of history.

The initial admission is that "imaginations need every discoverable aid" to frame conceptions of such, much less to receive it as scriptural truth. (Page 211) This authority admits no primacy at all in the beginning, but states the in-tention "to watch the progress of the office from a simple bishopric to a primacy," and that the "object of study" is not "the bishop of Rome per se but rather the bishop on the way to becoming "the supreme pontiff of the universal church," and conceding that no such pontiff existed at the first. (Page 213)

As late as the third century the See of Peter was a mere sect, among other schools in Rome, but the development of influence and claims of the bishops posed such a threat that


later on, during a vacancy in the bishopric, emperor Decius declared that he had rather hear of a rival claimant to the throne than of a new bishop at Rome. (Page 215)

After apostles of Christ and eye-witnesses disappeared men began gradually to formulate traditions, crystallizing into a permanent institution bit by bit, with rituals for service and creeds for administration, upon which the claim was later based for a line of episcopal succession at Rome, in which to ensure unbroken continuity of this doctrine. (Page 220-21) The modern Baptists, both the Primitive and Missionary branches, make the same untenable claim.

The church at Jerusalem in all the circumstances, from a human viewpoint, could have more reasonably demanded a superior place and exalted reverence above that of Rome, but the Jerusalem church was dispersed at the destruction of the city. It could be that there was a divine reason for this dispersion, to prevent a "Judean See" along the same line that Rome's apostasy developed.

4. The Roman See existed independently and was dis-tinct from the Roman Church.

There were two claims with reference to the two re-spective founders. It was claimed that Peter was granted the primacy among the apostles; and to a Roman bishop was assigned the leadership over all bishops. During the following years tradition and legend expanded to fit the new papal theory, continued on the assumptions previously expressed. (Pages 224-25)

As to what was to be regarded as genuine doctrine "the church" relied on two sources: the four gospels and tradition (Page 263), thus elevating tradition to a place of equal authen-ticity with the gospel records, but virtually ignoring and rele-gating the epistles of the New Testament and other portions of inspired scripture. The preference for tradition was argued

on the ground that the meaning of the scriptures could be disputed, but there could be no dispute over tradition because the transmitter of tradition had ipso facto right to interpret it! (Page 286)

This theory soon came into practical formulation, and with it the authority of the Roman bishop based on the gen-erally accepted view that the New Testament was authority only "as far as it went," but the successors of Peter could propose whatever innovations they deemed necessary with power invested in them to open and close the kingdom of heaven. (Page 297)

A period of controversies between the bishops followed, bishop versus bishop-contests between claimants to authority in religion, as the papal powers continued to develop. (Page 300) Callistus and Victor, Cyprian and Tertullian, Origen and Jerome, Novatian and Hippolytus-out of these contro-versies came the provincial councils to legislate in the process of binding decisions as dogmas in the growing observance of stricter traditions. (Page 351)

Concluding the chronicles of these developments with Damasus, known as the greatest of the early bishops, who made the See of Rome the head of a supposedly united Chris-tendom, all bishops of Rome were then made to share in what was termed Peter's powers-from whom the apostolate and episcopate supposedly had their beginning-and the "spirit of Peter" rather than Christ is now the so-called See that claims above all else to be "apostolic." On this claim they lean when all other authorities falter and fail.

When a complete review of the documentary evidence is made, the conclusion is obvious, inevitable and unalterable that this so-called "papal chronology," based on the Liberian Catalogue, recedes into "nothing but names and dates" as the whole office of the Roman bishopric vanishes into obscurity for all who later tried to learn about it. There had been vacancies in the "succession" more than once. After Mar-cellinus came the seven-year interregnum during which there was no ordained bishop at Rome, and the Roman See was vacant. Also after the disappearance of Eusebius once more the Roman See was vacant for a considerable period of time.

Thus the Roman Catholic claims concerning the Petrine Tradition and the See of Peter rests upon an assumed papal succession, which in turn relies on the inaccurate data of a papal chronology, drawn up at Rome thirty years after the death of Eusebius, to which has been added through the years the legion of inaccuracies of dogma and tradition, for which there is not a line of history nor a syllable of scripture.


Jesus Christ said, "And I say also unto thee, that thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16-18)

This momentous question presents universal problems to men who think on the subject of the church. Does the true church exist today? How may one find it? Of the many that do exist, is not one as good as another? Are there not legions of good people in them all? How can an honest man know which church he would join? In fact, why should he join one? The average man becomes lost in a maze of mystery and decides that no church is as good as any.

(1) One church or no church.

It is an admitted fact that Jesus Christ founded an in-stitution which he called the church. It is also true that there are in the world today many human institutions which are called churches, founded by men, existing by no higher authority than the word of men, governed by no higher authority than the creeds of men. Who is ready to say that these institutions are as good as the church that Jesus Christ built, and of which he is the head? The fact that good people are in these human churches, better would they be called fraternities, is beside the point. There are good men in the Masonic Lodge, and good women in its feminine gender, the Eastern Star, but that does not make them divine institutions. If good people in all the churches make one church as good as another, then good people out of all the churches makes no church as good as any. All such is shallow reasoning. In the light of the New Testament-it is the church or no church.

What church should a man join? Why say what church? Rather, why not join all of them, that is, all to which we might have access. If, as claimed, there is good in all of them; some good in one not in the other, truth in all, but not all truth in any; why limit a man to only a part of the truth, and a fractional amount of the good, when he could have access to all of the good and all of the truth by joining all of the churches. Men belong to more than one lodge, society, or club; hold insurance policies in more than one insurance company and deposit money in more than one bank-why not membership in more than one church, if it is purely a matter of "joining some church," one of which is as good as the other. It reveals the fact that no one really believes that one church is as good as another, and the statement turns out to be an effort to be broad-minded and polite.

Men do not join the divine church. The Bible says that God adds to the church those who receive and obey His word- when they do. "Then they that received the word were baptized and were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls." (Acts 2:41) "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." (Acts 2:47) Yet this dashing, smashing slogan of a "union meeting" was once seen: "JOIN THE CHURCH OF YOUR CHOICE AND BE BAPTIZED AS YOU PLEASE." And that in the name of religion assuming that God has neither church nor choice, and that the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles never uttered a syllable on the how and the what of baptism.

(2) Method of identification.


The matter of finding the true church is as simple as any matter of identification, when the means by which to identify are at hand. Do you have an identification card in your billfold, purse, or key holder? For what purpose? It describes your person so that in case of accident or emergency you could be identified. When an automobile is lost or stolen the method of identification proceeds on the basis of registra-tion, that is, the make, model, and the number. The New Testament contains the description of the New Testament church-the church of Christ-it is a registered institution. Its make, its model, and its number, so to speak, are on divine record. Identify it by its characteristics. You have the means at hand-the divine record-and when you find a body of people today who embrace the principles set forth in the New Testament in teaching and practice-that will be the identifi-cation.

The New Testament plainly teaches that there is but one true church. Jesus Christ said, "My church." Paul said, "The church, which is his body." Again, "The body, the church." (Col. 1:18) Further, "There is one body." (Eph. 4:4) And finally, "But one body." (1 Cor. 12:20) If that is not talking of one church, and the same one, it is a peculiar waytotalkof many.

There are several uses of the word "church" in the New Testament, but in each use its unity is seen. First, the gen-eral church-all of the saved in the aggregate. "And gave him to be the head over all things to the church which is his body." (Eph. 1:22) Second, the local church, all of the saved within a certain locality, restricted by a geographical term of limitation. "The church of God at Corinth." (1 Cor. 1:2) "The church of Macedonia." (2 Cor. 8:2) And also, "the seven churches of Asia"-all the same church (John preached for all of them), of one faith and order. Third, the congregation or assembly. "When the whole church be come together." (1 Cor. 14:26) In any New Testa-ment sense the use of the word "church," when it refers to the institution of Christ, includes all the saved, no more and no less. But a denomination cannot be the church in any Bible sense. In the general sense, the denomination is smaller than the church-for no denomination claims to have within its fold all the saved on earth. In the local sense, the denomina-tion is larger than the church-for a denomination is com-posed of all local bodies of one faith and order. The de-nomination is too large to be the church in the local sense, and is too small to be the church in the whole sense, it is therefore not the church in any sense!

(3) Procreation and perpetuity

The church as set forth in the New Testament is simply this: God ordained that men should obey the gospel, thus become Christians and by this process be saved. In so doing, they are added to the church, the saved in the aggregate. God then ordains that Christians should band themselves together for the purpose of work and worship-and wherever such a body of Christians is found, banded together in and under the scriptural requirements of the local church, without ecclesiastical head or creed, but who are in doctrine, worship, and work what the New Testament requires-there you find a New Testament church.

Much has been heard in the past of the perpetuity of the church-its origin and succession. The effort to establish succession has been virtually abandoned by the Baptists. Their historians were in their way. Ancient history revealed a gap that could not be bridged. The Bible, not history, is the thing needed to establish the claims of the New Testament church. As long as the seed exists that produces the thing- why worry about succession? Then what of origin? God created the church-as he created Adam, the first man. Next was procreation. Creation was the miracle; procreation, the law. The church, the new man, was created. (Eph. 2:14-16) On Pentecost it was formed; the Spirit was imparted to it. Today we have the seed, for "the seed is the word of God"


(Lk. 8:11), which is the divine means of procreation. Thus when men hear, believe, and obey the word, the New Testa-ment church is reproduced, procreated. There is no need of unbroken succession, ecclesiastical church-making, creed-writ-ing, synods, councils, conventions, manuals, disciplines, articles, confessions and catechisms, nor of the parties descending therefrom. Only the pure word of God is needed and wherever it is obeyed the result will be Christians-and the church is composed of Christians.

(4) Organization and government

The organization of the church is simple, not complex. The church is not a mere vague, spiritual thing, without visible existence or government. Of the whole church Jesus Christ is the Head, and the New Testament is the law. As a kingdom, Christ is the King, Christians are citizens- a divine monarchy unlimited and absolute. From the King's decrees (the laws of the New Testament) there can be no appeal. His laws are subject to no change or revision, no modification, not even by assumed holiness, the pope and his cardinals.

But the head of the church provided organization for his church. There is first the body-the members; then there are the rulers over them, the elders, who are officers of God of first rank, who though described by several titles, such as bishops, pastors, elders, presbyters, are nevertheless one official group. The New Testament order is a plurality of elders in every church, not a plurality of churches under one elder. The elders are what the word implies-men of age, experience, knowledge and wisdom, whose character and faith qualify them to rule the congregation. Such men were ordained by the apostles, and those to whom the apostles delegated such right, to be elders in the church. Their quali-fications and duties were laid down in the divine record near the close of the era of inspiration, showing that it belonged to the permanent and not the provisional order. They are under the divine command to enforce the teaching of the New Testament in the church of which they are the over-seers.

The New Testament orders its elders to rule; deacons to serve; preachers to preach; members to work. This divine arrangement-the local church-is the only organization known to the New Testament. All organizations larger or smaller than the local church, are not only unnecessary but unscriptural.



Before this magnificent audience, and before the great God of heaven and earth, I stand again to further expose the fallacies of a supposed infallible institution-the so-called "Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church." I shall submit tonight more and more preponderant proof that this institu-tion of man is not holy, is not catholic, is not apostolic, and is not the church. It is rather a human, man-made, political, ecclesiastical hierarchy, lacking all of the characteristics of the New Testament Church, and is not the church of Christ in any sense, in whole or in part.

The doctrines of the Roman Catholic church fall into two heads: sacraments and sacramentals. They are not the same. The present task is to separate them and take them apart.

There are eight points that have to do with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church: Sacraments, sacramentals, days, books, symbols, services, societies, and obligations. Let us take them in order.



There are seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church.

First: The Sacrament Of Baptism.

The sacrament of baptism in the Catholic Church is at-tended by fifteen ceremonies, all of which from the first to the last are unknown to the New Testament. I want to give you their conception of what they call the sacrament of baptism.

(1) The purpose of baptism.

They tell us first of all that "baptism is a sacrament which cleanses us from original sin," and "to remind of original sin


in which we are born," and of "the trials awaiting the one baptized in this world." So says "Visible Church," by Sulli-van, p. 39. Baptism cleanses, according to the Bible, and is "for the remission of sins," but not "original sin." That is the doctrine of hereditary, total depravity, which involves the consequences of infant damnation-a relic of Rome, which the Bible does not teach. The textbook of Catholicism states a false purpose for baptism in its first sentence under that heading.

(2) The action of baptism. The author of "Visible Church" admits that "in early times baptism was administered only to adults," and "by im-mersion until about the ninth century," but was "never con-sidered essential," that is, immersion was never essential. (Page 39) Baptism was for the purpose of getting rid of original sin, and was immersion until the ninth century, but

immersion was not essential. They found that out in the ninth century!

(3) The subjects of baptism.

The authoritative Catholic textbook, "Visible Church," further says: "In early times given publicly to adults only on "Holy Saturdays"-still indicated in the rituals." (Page 39) Infant baptism is not known in the New Testament. It is a child of Catholicism, like sprinkling. They got rid of im-mersion by the edict of the pope, and they changed the sub-jects of baptism to include infants by edicts of the pope. You will notice "in early times" baptism was administered publicly to adults only on Holy Saturday, and the practice is still "in-dicated" in the ritual, if not still thus performed. I am quoting from the Catholic authority, "Visible Church," their textbook. They administered baptism only on Saturday. They would not baptize even an "adult" on any other day in the week. "Holy Saturday"-so no subject of baptism could get rid of his original sin until Saturday. It is like taking a bath on Saturday whether you need it or not! Baptized only on


Saturday, and if one died before Saturday, he died in his original sin. That is the doctrine, "still indicated in the ritual." Then because they think it saves from "original sin," in order for infants to escape damnation, they began to sprinkle babies, to save them from original sin. Too bad for the babies that died before the ninth century.

(4) The ceremony of baptism.

The ceremony requires a sponsor for the child, who there-after becomes the god-parent of the child, to take absolute responsibility for the training of the child, the parents no longer to have any responsibility for the religious training of that child, it passes into the hands of the sponsor. A parent cannot be sponsor for a child, as it is asserted that one cannot be both the natural and spiritual parent. It is obvious to all, surely, that such ceremonies are purely human regulations, without the semblance of divine sanction.

And here is the ceremony for baptizing the infants:

(1) The sponsor presents the child. (2) The priest breathes on the face of the child. (3) He places his hand on the child's head. (4) He puts salt in the child's mouth, which is a sign of purification and preservation from corruption. (5) Exor-cisms are read to deliver the child from the dominion of Satan. Here is the place the doctrine of total depravity originated, no authority for it under heaven, except the abominable pope of Rome, and Protestants are not out of Rome's front yard.

(6) The priest's stole is laid on the infant to remind of the catechumens. That is what they call those who are being instructed for baptism. They could not instruct the babies, so they just had to "play like it," just to have something to remind of it. (7) The profession of faith, the reciting of the Apostles' Creed by the baby's sponsor to the baby! The sponsor stoops over the baby and recites the Apostles Creed to the baby! (8) The Ephpheta-a part of the ceremony in which the priest moistens his finger with saliva from his own mouth, and touches the ears of the child, for understanding;


the nostrils for the sweet odor of spiritual life; and moistens the baby's tongue with his saliva to signify the dumb being cured. Relics of ignorance! (9) The vows-the priest inter-rogates the baby, but the baby's sponsor answers the questions. These baptismal promises are made by the sponsor under the pain of mortal sin. But suppose the child decides not to keep the vows? The sponsor makes the vows for the child under pain of mortal sin, that is, if the sponsor is not able to cause that child to keep its vows, then mortal sin is the result. And mortal sin in the Catholic church means an unpardonable sin. Venial sin means temporary sin. It can be pardoned, by in-dulgence. But mortal sin is unpardonable, unless the pope changes his mind, and decides to pardon it. In view of this we can see why it is hard to induce a Catholic to quit the Roman church. It involves the welfare of his sponsor. (10) The anointing of the oil of catachumens-for those instructed but not yet baptized. (11) The interrogations-as stated, the priest asks the sponsor questions that the baby is supposed to answer, through the sponsor. He asks the baby first, through his sponsor, if it "believes in Jesus Christ," that he "was born and suffered." He asks the baby if it "believes in the Holy Ghost and the Holy Catholic Church." The sponsor says it does! He asks the baby if it will be baptized." The sponsor says it will! (12) The baptism-the priest takes the water and pours the water on the head of the baby three times. I have heard of trine immersion, but that is trine affusion!

(13) The holy chrism-the anointing with scented oil, sweet smelling, perfumed oil, making the sign of the cross, de-noting that the baby is now a Christian. And what was the baby before all of that? A little infant child of the devil!

(14) A white cloth is put over the child's head as a sign of innocence, after it is baptized. Well, what was it before? Not innocent? See, mothers, the condition of your baby when it is born into the world, until a Catholic priest takes the saliva from his mouth, and, instead of spitting in your baby's face, he pats the spit on the forehead! (15) Finally, a


candle is lighted by the sponsor who holds the lighted candle over the baby to symbolize the light of faith. The "ceremony of baptism"-bah!

Fifteen ceremonies connected with Catholic baptism, not a one of which is mentioned in the word of God, nor anything remotely kin to it hinted at in the Bible. Talk about the holy, apostolic, catholic church! It is not holy; it is not apostolic; it is not catholic; it is not the church. The Catholic church is grossly wrong on every point of baptism; it is not right, not in one single point.

Second: The Sacrament Of Confirmation.

The ceremony of confirmation is for the purpose of strength and protection through spiritual impartation, they tell us.

(1) The institution of confirmation.

The Catholic authority, "Visible Church," says: "Like all sacraments, confirmation was given by the Lord, but the ac-count of when and where is not given in the scriptures." (page 47) Get that? Why, that's Catholic authority talking in the textbook for Catholic schools and colleges, conceding that the sacrament of confirmation is unaccounted for in the Bible! It was "given" but the Lord just failed to mention it! That is a fatal admission that it is a human ordinance.

(2) The minister of confirmation.

He is the person who confers it, ordinarily, the bishop. "Visible Church" says: "Bishops are required to provide for administration of confirmation in every part of their dioceses at least once in five years." (page 48) Rather unimportant- if one can do without it five years, why not dispense with it altogether?

(3) The matter of confirmation.

They call it consecrated oil, or the holy chrism. It is perfumed olive oil, mixed with balm of balsam, the symbol of spiritual strength, used because athletes of ancient time used it to promote bodily vigor! (Visible Church, page 8) If it would promote the bodily vigor of an athlete, why it certainly ought to make a strong Catholic! This "holy chrism" is blessed on every Thursday, a custom which began in A. D. 500. The innovations of Romanism have no regard for scriptural authority, or the sacred precincts of divine pre-cepts-absolutely none. It is a human system by their own repeated admissions.

(4) The form of confirmation.

It consists in a lot of liturgies, which we do not have the time to specify here. In the Latin ceremonial the words are: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." (Visible Church, page 49) Where does the Bible authorize such a use of the sacred name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or for such a thing to be performed with or without the Godhead, in or out of the Trinity? Only in Matt. 28:18-20 is the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit used to administer anything, and only in baptism. Not even the Lord's Supper is administered in that name.

(5) The ceremony of confirmation. The bishop extends his hands, invoking seven gifts of the Spirit, anointing the forehead with the chrism in the form of a cross. How does he know the seven gifts came? Whose imagination devised all of that? He blows on the cheek of the person being confirmed. Too bad if the bishop has hali-tosis! You see, the baby is baptized and later confirmed. When the priest baptizes the baby, he takes saliva from his mouth and puts it on the baby's forehead-a mild way of spitting on it! When he confirms the child he blows his breath on the cheek of the confirmed child. Well, if the oil of the holy chrism has to be "perfumed" in order to be effective

in the anointing, if the bishop has halitosis when he blows the breath, what effect would that have on it? Yes, sir, if the


oil must be perfumed, I want to smell the bishop's breath before he begins mixing it with perfumed oil!

All of these ceremonies go along with what they call confirmation, the bishop then pronounces the Pax Tecum, "Peace be with thee," and that settles it; that is, for five years. He officiates once every five years in each community. If they can get along five years without it, why not dispense with the pagan thing. But he comes, does his confirmations, put the money in his pocket, says, "Peace be with you! I will see you again in five years"! And that is confirmation!

Third: The Sacrament Of Penance.

The confession of sins, or penance, is the sacrament through which sins committed after baptism are forgiven. Sins committed after baptism are forgiven through penance. It is not enough to repent and pray. You must pay and pray. Pay while you pray, and pray while you pay. Pay the priest while you pray to the priest. If you will pay as long as you pray, your praying will be effective; but if you quit paying, see how effective will be your praying. Praying ceases to be effective when the paying stops. It is strictly a professional fee, like going to a dentist, a doctor, or a lawyer. That is all it is, pay the fee for penance. It is a revenue tariff on prayer. Let us look at this thing called penance.

(1) The jurisdiction.

All priests have the power of forgiving sins, but they must have special permission to use that power. (Visible Church, page 51) Get that? It sounds like a premillennialist saying that Jesus Christ has all the power, but is not exercising it! Well, that is what they say. The priest has power to forgive sins, but he cannot exercise it without permission. If he has the power suppose that he used it without permis-sion. If he cannot, then he does not have it. The idea that he has the power but "cannot" exercise it is a false distinction. There are some other folks in religion that make the same


mistake. I mentioned their name, accidentally (on purpose), the premillennialists! It sounds like their chatter, exactly.

(2) The confessional.

The confessional is always administered in secret. The confessional cannot be administered in public. All other six sacraments are administered in the presence of witnesses, but not the confessional. It concerns none but the penitent and the priest. There is a confessional box, a sort of enclosure. There is a seat for the priest in the enclosure. There is the box for the penitent, the alcove, the partition, the gratings and sliding shutters. (Visible Church, page 52) The thing is the pitfall for the priests and seduction for women-perdition for sisters and Sodom for priests. Misguided girls go to the confessional box and pour out their confessions into the ears of unmarried priests. Deluded women enter the confessional alcove and pour out the secrets of the family into the ears of an unmarried priest. Catholic husbands, if any of you are present, do you think that your wife ought to be subject to two men, the priest and the husband? And to tell the priest things that she would not dare to tell her husband? Do you know what the confessional is? It is the keyhole through which the priest peeps into the home, learning things that be-long to the private precincts of the hearts of the husband and of the wife. How would you like to have a Catholic wife who would dare to go into the confessional of the Roman priest-hood? The priest is an unmarried man of like passions with others. The confessional does not fit celibacy. It is a perfect setting for seduction. These Catholic high priests have as many women to serve them in secret chambers as modern Solomons, or Brigham Youngs. It is a stench in the nostrils of decent men and women. It makes good people blush to think of what happens to hysterical women in the Roman Catholic confession. When the confessers do not voluntarily name all of their sins, the priest will cross-question them, and in doing so, allegedly uses language that one prostitute would


not use to another. He requires full knowledge. He demands that they tell it all. The penitent is bound to confess both mortal and venial sins. The whole institution is based on the desire of the Catholic church to know the inner secrets of every family on earth. When a Catholic organization can thus get "inside information" on every family they have the regi-mentation of the individual and of the family fully established, and can use it for any political purpose under heaven. That is the reason the priest is given so much power-the pope operates through him for the purpose of Catholic information.

The curricular confession is the Catholic Bureau of In-formation. The why of the confessional is herein seen. It is based on the claim of discretionary and judicial power of a confessor priest to "bind and loose," and the priest is not only the absolver but the judge of the confesser. Catholic friend, why be such a victim? Why not follow the Bible, and confess only to God through Christ our Advocate? (1 Jno.

2: 1-2).

Fourth: The Sacrament Of Extreme Unction.

This sacrament is the last anointing. Through anointing and prayer, the priest gives strength to the soul and body when in danger of death from sickness. The origin of ex-treme unction is admitted to be human. Here is what the Catholic authority says about it: "Extreme unction, like all other sacraments was instituted by the blessed Lord, but there is no mention of it in the gospel." (Visible Church, page 55) Isn't that silly? Imagine anybody claiming common intelli-gence talking about a thing being scriptural which is not mentioned in the scriptures. Instituted but not recorded! The Lord instituted it but just forgot to mention it. So the pope and the priest come along to tell us.

(1) The matter of the sacrament.

It is called, "Oleum Infirmorum," the "oil of the sick." They certainly use a lot of pharmaceutical expressions!


(2) The equipment for theceremony.

Provided for this ritual must be a table with white cloth, a crucifix, with two candles, holy water, a sprinkler, fresh water and a spoon, napkins, balls of cotton-why, you would think they were fixing up an operating room to take out an appendix!

(3) The ceremony of the unction.

With the sprinkler, they sprinkle all the persons in the room and sprinkle the sick person. They sprinkle the room and sprinkle everybody in the room. They surely need a sprinkler for that much sprinkling! The thumbs of the pri-:sr must be dipped in oil, and he makes the sign of the cross, first, on the eyes for the sins of sight; then on the ears for sins of hearing; then on the nose for sins of smelling. The one about to die must be absolved of the sins committed by smelling. I wonder what he sniffed that smelled so bad! Surely, it was not liquor-the priests like that too well! Continuing, he touches the lips for sins of taste, the tongue for sins of talking, and the feet for sins of walking, if the person is sick, or affected in a way that would not be proper to expose the feet for any reason, the feet should not be touched. They will omit it, they say, for his convenience. In other words, he can just take his "walking sins" to heaven with him. It be-longs to the silly, absurd, and puerile. It belongs to the simple-minded superstitions of the dark ages, to ignorance and illit-eracy, but not to enlightened people of the twentieth century.

(4) The apostolic blessing.

This is the ceremony of the last blessing. They call it "plenary indulgence," which means full indulgence, or par-don. It is not obtained when the prayer ends, but only in case of death. If the patient gets well it does not take! They want some more money out of him if he lives. They will do it all over again

Fifth: The Sacrament Of The Holy Orders.

The ordinance of orders is a sacrament by which the priests are ordained to receive the power and grace to per-form their sacred duties.

(1) The tonsure.

It sounds like a modern barber shop, but it signifies a person who, when it is received, is taken from the world, ceases to be layman, and becomes a member of the clergy. That is the way they elevate him from the laity to the clergy. They separate him from the world-the priest is taken out of the world. But I notice he still eats and drinks, and not always water! Anyhow, they claim to be taken out of the world when they become priests, no longer of the world. The "tonsure," as they call it, consists of cutting off some of the candidate's hair and of shaving a circular spot on top of the head. I see some fellows here in this audience who are naturally tonsured-ready for the priesthood! Some heads out there look like a drowned out place in a hay field-natural "tonsure" in that case! But the ceremony requires the bishop to clip five locks of hair from the head, on either side and center in form of the cross. Thus Rome attempts to hand down the relics of superstition from medieval ages to an enlightened century.

(2) Minor orders.

This is a necessary preparation for the priesthood. In the minor orders are the porters-the bishops' bellhops. Then, the exorcists to cast out devils. Yes, Catholics have a caster-out of devils. But Holy Rollers can do just as well, without the tonsure. Catholicism on this point is no better than modern cults that claim power to work miracles. It is an office created in centuries when people believed in demoniacal possession, attempting to imitate the work of Christ and the apostles. Every error known to false Mormon doctrine is in some way embodied in the Roman church.


(3) The deaconship.

This is the last step before the priesthood. It requires celibacy as a condition. The unmarried state is exalted by Rome, but the Catholic church depends on the increase in birth rate among the poor for membership. The Catholic church depends on a class less holy than their ideal for existence. If all should practice their teaching the Catholic church could not exist.

(4) The priesthood.

This ordination imprints on the soul the mark never to be erased. Once a priest, always a priest. His powers are to offer mass, bless anyone or anything, rule the flock, ad-minister sacraments, and forgive sins. If the claim is true the Catholic priest has power equal to Christ and God. The apostle themselves had no such power and claimed no such power. The Pharisees, as arrogant as they were, did not dare to claim such power, and they criticized Jesus while he was on earth because he claimed to forgive the sins of men, and thought it blasphemy because none but God could forgive. They claim power that the apostles did not possess, and did not claim to possess. They claim a power that the most arrogant Pharisee who ever stood on the soil of the Lord's native country did not dare to claim. Yet they claim it un-abashedly, unblushingly and blasphemously, knowing that no such power resides in men. It is their source of revenue, and is a system of deception and fraud.

I do not mean that all the Catholic people are dishonest. There are many people in the Catholic church who are honest and sincere, but deluded, because the Bible has been a pro-scribed book to the Roman Catholic-not intended for the laity.

Sixth: The Sacrament Of Matrimony.

The sacrament of marriage consists of forms enacted by the Council of Trent, which make marriage lawful. But when


a Catholic talks of "lawful" marriage, they do not mean the civil contract authorized by the laws of the state or of the New Testament. Lawful marriage with the Catholic is marriage according to the law of the Council of Trent- Catholic canon law. If it is not according to the forms of the Council of Trent, it is not lawful marriage. Now get that distinction because that is what a Catholic means by it. Catholic language is phrased in such a way that the ordinary person does not always know the import of their words. It is covered, hidden, concealed in ambiguity.

(1) The Pauline privilege.

Performed without the canon of Trent, every marriage is invalid. That is the teaching of Rome. I read it to you in the syllabus of Pius IX. They recognize no civil contract of marriage. If it is not performed by the canon law, a Catholic is declared free to marry again. The believer married to the unbeliever is made to mean the Catholic to a non-Catholic, and the Catholic can at his desire and discretion, take his hat and walk out, leave his non-Catholic mate, and be ab-solutely free to marry again. They call this the "Pauline privilege" of 1 Cor. 7.

(2) The indissolubility of marriage.

The law of the church reads: "A valid Christian marriage wherein the parties have lived together as man and wife is indissoluble-that is, it cannot be dissolved except by death of one of the parties." (Visible Church, page 74) Still, there are various grounds on which the pope dissolves marriage. It is indissoluble but the pope can dissolve it! Just "papa," the pope, and if he says yes or no, why it is so!

(3) Impediments to marriage.

This refers to things which hinder marriage. The pope and priest have absolute power over every man and woman in the world on the marriage question. Grown men and women bow to the arbitrary will of a papal decree. They cannot even marry where they please. They must marry within the parish of the priest. That is by the law of the Catholic church. The arbitrary law of Rome regiments the conduct of every individual from the cradle to the grave.

No. 1: The parish law is that the marriage must be per-formed by a priest in his own parish, and if the priest outside of his parish attempts to marry anyone, there is no marriage consummated, it is declared invalid. If a Catholic priest out-side of his parish marries a couple, that couple is not married. And why? The law of the Catholic church says that it is wrong because the wrong priest got the fee! The fee belongs to the priest in that parish. You see, it is a political protec-tion of the priest's fee. It is like an insurance agent getting out of his district, or a Frigidaire salesman selling a refrigerator to somebody not in his territory. For cheap competition the priest will annul a marriage-the wrong priest collected the fee for it! That is how much conscience the Catholic priest has, and is a close-up look at their political and social system. (Visible Church, page 82)

No. 2: A vow of virginity, or chastity, not to marry, can-not be withdrawn. This vow once made marriage can never be valid by Catholic law. An impulsive mistake binds for-ever-a diriment impediment-the pope would bind a rash promise on a young girl for life, but free others on sheerest pretences.

No. 3: A sponsor at baptism who later falls in love, even if no physical, legal or scriptural reason to preclude marriage exists, the arbitrary law of the Catholic church decrees no marriage. It is a solemn warning to a young man not to sponsor a beautiful young girl at baptism. He might later want to marry her! (Visible Church, page 78)

No. 4: Difference in worship. A Catholic cannot be married to an unbaptized person, unless by special dispensa-tion, without which such a marriage is null. Dispensation means that you must ask "papa," the pope. At his will he may


say yes or no. An Italian pope in Rome tells free moral men and women in America whether they can or cannot marry.

No. 5: Clandestiny. A secret marriage is null. No man or woman has the right to keep a secret from the pope or priest. They want in on all of it! The arbitrary laws of Rome will regiment the conduct of every individual from the cradle to the grave. (Visible Church, page 78-84)

Seventh: The Sacrament Of The Mass.

The idea of the mass is from the Latin, "Missa," derived from the verb, "Mittere," "to send away"-at the end of the mass one is dismissed, set free. It originated in "the first centuries," and became "common" in "each church" in the fourth century, according to Visible Church, page 87.

(1) The meaning. It is a supposed-observance of the un-bloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, living body and blood, soul and divinity, "actually existent in the bread and wine. The name for that doctrine is transubstantiation-the physical substance of body and blood transferred to bread and wine.

(2) Stipends tor mass. The amount of money received by a priest for administering mass is now fixed by diocesan rule, as to how many a local priest can administer in one day, and the collections that he can make for it, because it came to be commercial. The priest receives money for masses-so the price was fixed! The church charges its members for a sin-forgiving ceremony. A service in which they forgive the sins of its members has a fixed price, and a limit on how many such sin-forgiving services can be held in a day or a week.

(3) The kinds of masses. There is the solemn mass, where the deacons aid; the pontifical mass, where the bishop pre-sides; the papal mass, by the pope himself; the high mass, by the priest; the low mass, aided by servants; the parochial mass, for parish church Sundays; the capitular mass, high mass

on Sunday in Catholic countries; the conventual mass, offered daily before the chapter of canons; the votive mass, at the choice of the celebrant; the requiem mass, for the dead.

There are ten masses for various classes who have the passes! The pass is whatever they charge for it. Not one of them is found in God's word. It is a dictum of the hier-archy of Rome.

(4) The growth of the mass. The "growth of the mass' through the centuries, growing in detail until it became the mass of today, is an admitted fact. Of the many kinds of the mass, none of them originated in the New Testament, all of them centuries this side. Visible Church, page 92, concedes that it was a "gradual development." Every utterance of Rome becomes a proof of its infallibility and of its human origin, yet they have the audacity to bind a man-made law on millions of men. The place where it is to be held, for instance, is specified, and must be in a chapel. If there is none, then no mass, unless by special dispensation. The altar is also necessary for the lawful celebration of mass. The crucifix and candles must be lighted-without lighted candles Christ cannot be transubstantiated, his flesh and blood cannot be transferred to the bread and wine unless the candles are burn-ing! Then the bread is prescribed by Rome: "The Roman church uses wheatened bread unleavened." (Visible Church, page 112) It "probably began in the eighth century," another admission of humanity by the textbook of the church. And the wine-they use the word "wine." The New Testament does not use the word anywhere in connection with the Lord's Supper. It says "the fruit of the vine," but the Catholic Church says it must be alcoholic wine, not mere fruit of the vine. The New Testament says nothing of the sort, and does not even use the word "wine" in the command and instruc-tions for the supper. The vessels pertaining to it are num-erous-they have all sorts of them. The textbook, "Visible Church," devotes three pages of pictures of the vessels essential


to the mass. It reminds one of an antique shop, or museum, rather than a New Testament church engaged in simple, scriptural worship. The whole thing reverts to the super-stitions of the medieval ages, and can be classed only with the relics of Rome.

In connection with the celebration of mass, the Roman pontiffs have had the audacity to bind a set of man-made recitations on millions of people. The creed, a profession of faith, began to be recited in Spain in the sixth century; the lavabo, washing the priest's fingers, originated in the four-teenth century; the sanctus, words of the angels, existed, we are told, "as early as the fifth century"; the elevation of the host, raising the chalice, began among Dominicans at the end of the fourteenth century; the commemoration for the dead, was introduced by Gregory the Great; the pater noster, an "our father" ceremony, "goes back to the fourteenth cen-tury," according to page 106 in Catholic text-book Visible Church, by the man Sullivan; the agnus dei, "to the lamb of God," was put into the mass 700 A.D. by Serguin; the priest's communion, recalling the centurion's prayer, was authorized by the missal, a Catholic book, in 1570; the communion of the people, called communion and dismissal, were all "au-thorized as parts of the mass by Pius V," says Visible Church, page 109. None of these ceremonious observances began in the New Testament. They were by Catholic admission "a growth" and "a gradual development," and indeed, so was the Roman church itself.

(5) The requisites for the mass. On this service, Sulli-van says, in Visible Church, "the church has made many rules concerning the things necessary for the lawful celebra-tion of the mass." Their every utterance is but added proof of Rome's human fallibility and man-made traditions. There are numerous requirements for mass observance: (a) the place, only in church or chapel, by church law; (b) the altar, which is absolutely necessary for lawful celebration of mass;

(c) the crucifix and candles are so essential that Sullivan says, "there must be lighted candles" (the Lord just will not trans-substantiate without candles that are lighted!); (d) the bread, which "the Roman church uses," says Sullivan, is "wheaten bread unleavened" and "probably" began in the eighth cen-tury; (e) the wine, it must be alcoholic, not mere the fruit of the vine, or juice of the grape, but real alcoholic wine, though the New Testament says nothing of the sort, and the word wine is not even used in the new testament in reference to the communion; (f) the vessels, such as the chalice, the paten, the ciboruim, the pyx, all these are "requisites" with-out which there is no mass. All of these, with the "pictures" which flank a Catholic service, look more like an antique shop than a new testament church engaged in simple wor-ship. They are nothing but the relics of Rome mingled with the superstitions of the medieval Dark Ages.



Sullivan says, "A sacramental is anything set apart by the church to excite good thoughts, to increase devotion, and through these movements to remit venial sin." (Visible Church, page 119)

There are thirteen sacramentals in Catholic liturgy.

First: The Sign Of The Cross.

This sacramental is the symbol of deliverance, by making the sign an "indulgence" is gained for fifty days, or one hundred days, if holy water is used with it. It is the symbol of deliverance from the power of Satan. It was granted by pope Pius IX in 1863, therefore of human origin.

Second: The Cross.

It is the most important Catholic emblem, symbolizing, they say, the redemption of mankind. There are eight dif-ferent kinds of crosses: (1) There was the swastika (that


reminds us, does it not?) The swastika is one of the Catholic crosses. * Do you reckon that is where Hitler got it? (2) The Greek cross. (3) St. Andrew's cross. (4) The Maltese cross.

(5) The Celtic cross. (6) The Tau cross. (7) The Egyptian cross. (8) The Patriarchal cross. Eight crosses the Catholics worship, different sorts and kinds representing different ob-jects of Roman Catholic idolatry. It would reduce Christianity to cults of site worshippers and relic hunters. The meaning of the cross of Christ is not found in relics. The "word of the cross" is not symbolized nor typified in Catholic sacra-mentals.

Third: The Crucifix. There is a difference between the cross and the crucifix. The cross becomes a crucifix only when an image of the body of Jesus is attached to it. The crucifix is a term "sanctioned by long usage," says Visible Church," page 123. The only authority that they can give us for the crucifix is "long usage." You can prove anything that way-anything under heaven, by usage or custom, from kissing the pope's big toe down to bowing before that little insignificant god of the Japanese, Hirohito, the so-called "son of heaven"-their emperor. That is "long usage" over in Japan. How long have they been bowing down to Nippon's son of heaven? Long usage, in-deed! What Roman Catholics need is Bible proof for their ordinances.

Fourth: Holy Water.

Holy water is "water blessed by the priest to beg God's blessing on those who use it." (Visible Church, page 125) The author of that Catholic textbook says "a tradition" is the only way they can trace holy water back to the second century, but admits that it was not in common use till "some-what later." So by their own admission their "holy water" is not in the Bible. They cannot trace it to the New Testament.

There are four kinds of holy water: (1) Baptismal holy water, used only on Saturday and blessed only on Saturday.


The Seventh Day Adventists accuse the pope of changing the sabbath. It looks to me like he is trying to hallow it in-stead of change it! He blesses all of those ordinances on what they call, "Holy Saturday." Who made "Saturday" holy?

(2) Water of consecration, or Gregorian water, ordered by Gregory IX. (3) Easter water, distributed on Saturday, the eve of Easter. I would prefer to distribute Easter eggs my-self, or Easter rabbits! (4) Ordinary water, made holy by the blessing of the priest for sprinkling people before the mass and for use at the church door. They mix salt with this water, a "custom" dating "probably" from the "second century," or thereabout, says Sullivan, page 126. When a Catholic cannot locate a date, he talks like a professor on the theory of evolu-tion-"probably" this and "presumably" that!

There are five uses of holy water: (1) in the ceremony of matrimony; (2) in extreme unction; (3) in communion for the sick; and, (4) in services for the dead in these services they use a bowl with a swinging handle, equipped with a sprinkler-they are strong on sprinklers, they ought to get a patent on sprinklers-they call this one asperjays, originating nine hundred years this side of the New Testament); (5) in exorcisms, the formula for which calls for salt water. Friends, you can mix it-just put salt in the water-but why not soda? It is better for indigestion, and that is what all of this Catholic stuff gives me! This is the formula of Rome for casting out devils, holy salt water, for casting out devils! Put enough salt in it and it would cast out everything.

The symbolism of holy water, it is claimed, is for cleans-ing, quenching, and preservation. So, there is an indulgence of one hundred days granted for using it. Briefly, an "in-dulgence" gives the one to whom it is granted the pope's permission to go on a sinning spree-with pardon in advance! Thus it becomes an incentive to sin. The Holy Roman Catholic Church, indeed! It is not holy; it is not Catholic; it is not the church.

Fifth: The Vestments.

Garments worn by priests in performance of sacred duties are supposedly to increase devotion. They are sacramentals, an essential in Catholic forms and formalities. They are,

(1) the priestly vestments and, (2) the various styles of vestments. These vestments lend religious sanction to anti-quated styles of a mysterious wardrobe, enshrouding Catholi-cism with the atmosphere of mysticism that belongs to its deceptive system. These pictures resemble a family album a few hundred years old. If you want to see some real antiques in uniform, just take a look at this gallery of garbs. Some of them look like "mother hubbards" with nightcaps! As well pass a law requiring the president of the United States to wear the official garb of colonial days, with George Wash-ington's wig! These "vestments of the priest," though labeled "holy vestments," are nothing more than the old ridiculous robes of the medieval and dark ages, and belong to a class of old relegated styles. The pictures of them in Sullivan's "Visible Church," reminds one more of an old family album of fashions several generations outmoded than of anything belonging to the changeless principles of the religion of Christ, or the perpetuity of the New Testament institution, the church of Christ.

Sixth: The Way Of The Cross.

The Catholic church has set up a sacrament called "the way of the cross," consisting of the following parts.

(1) The stations.

They are "fixed stations" which they think Jesus passed on the way to the cross. They are fixed on the wall of the church, sometimes on the inside, sometimes on the outside. There are internal and external stations on the way of the cross. So following the way of the cross is just "knocking around" on the inside or the outside of the building. The relics of Rome! Child's play. These devotions are performed

by meditations, they tell us, but imagination is a better word for it.

(2) The pictures.

These are imaginary pictures of Jesus, of Mary, and of the saints. They are called "aids" to devotion. Similar "aids" to worship I have heard about before-instrumental music, for instance, in the church. Incense aids the Catholic through smelling, pictures through seeing, the organ through hearing -what's the difference? Let a "Christian Church" preacher try to tell you!

I do not believe in the so-called pictures of Jesus. Nobody knows how Jesus looked. The pictures of Jesus are only the imagination of the artist, nothing more nor less than the creation of the Roman Catholic church, to make him look like a medieval monk. I do not believe Jesus looked that way. How would you like for somebody to "draw" your picture who never saw you? Photographs were not possible in that day. They did not see Jesus. They cannot draw a sketch of his likeness. Really, how would you like for somebody to draw your picture, if they had never seen you, and put your name under it? I do not want them drawing my picture, if they never saw me-might make me look like some of you!

Assuming and supposing it to be too difficult, and in periods of time too dangerous, and for some impossible, to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, the statuary, or pictures, representing the journey to Calvary were placed in Catholic churches. It was adopted about 1350, approved by the Holy See. So, century after century they assume that Christianity needs some new symbol, and they arbitrarily add it. It is nothing short of high-handed presumption of Italian prelates, priests, and popes in the name of religion.

(4) Indulgences on the way.

Of course, "the way" is just walking around looking at pictures. By going along these stations and bowing down


to the pictures indulgence for sin is obtained for one hundred days. A rather profitable trip! Yes sir, the one indulged can then raise the "whoopee, hooray"-have a big time. Your sins are forgiven in advance a hundred days! Plenary in-dulgence-full indulgence every time the stations are made! Some trip that is-worth taking even if it is a walk.

Seventh: The Rosary.

The rosary of the blessed virgin is prayer addressed to the "mother of God," consisting of "'Our Fathers' and 'hail Mary'," counted on beads.

(1) The beads. There are fifty-nine beads in number, six large ones for what they call "Our Father," fifty-three small ones for "hail Mary."

(2) The mysteries. These are for meditation while the rosary is recited. They count the beads as they call the mysteries. They are divided into three classes: joyful mysteries, sorrowful mysteries, and glorious mysteries, connected with the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus.

(3) The indulgence. The rosary is richly endowed with four kinds of indulgences for many days of absolution for any Catholic who properly uses it.

(4) The origin. Pope Benedict XV gives credit to St. Dominic for its establishment in 1170 to 1221. The pope being infallible, he ought to know where it started, and he admitted that it started 1100 years this side of Jesus Christ, the apostles, and the New Testament. It is a mere relic of Rome, an ancient superstition with no scriptural authority or sanction whatever.

Eighth: The Scapular. This word is pronounced, Ska-poo-lar. Yes, that is what they call it. I am up on it, you see!

(1) What it is-a badge of confraternity, the sacramental formula being prescribed by pope Leo XIII in 1888. It is a

long hooded garment, like that mother hubbard with a night-cap that I mentioned. And it is actually called a sacramental in the Catholic church.

(2) The purpose-it gives the wearer a share in the merits and the spiritual benefits of the association to which they belong.

(3) The regulations-it may be given to any Catholic, it may be given to infants, given at any place to the sick on their beds, but it must be worn constantly by the one to whom it is given, or they lose the benefit of its merits and spiritual graces, if they take it off and leave it off. That is just plain superstition. As well wear a rabbit's foot, put a horse shoe over the door, spit on a rag and throw it under the door step to keep warts off your face, or tie a piece of asafetida around a baby's neck to keep off the whooping cough, the measles, and the mumps! The cobwebs of superstition, and in the name of religion! The present investing formula of this silly thing was sanctioned by Leo XIII in 1888. Another evidence of utter disregard for the Bible, and lack of respect for divine authority in religion.

Ninth: Holy Oils.

This "holy oil" of the Catholics is just olive oil blessed by a bishop. There are several prescriptions for it.

(1) The oil of Catechumens (oleum sanctum) for the ceremony of baptism.

(2) Holy chrism-a scented ointment.

(3) Oil of the Sick (Oleum infirmorium), oil with balm for confirmation.

Read down the list of the holy oils, toiletries, and sun-dries. Why, it reads like a pharmaceutical laboratory, or a perfume factory. It is a Catholic pharmacy. They label each oil with a pharmaceutical name. However, they do not talk in regular terms, but add a sacred flavor to their labels


by such words as "oleum sanctum," and "sanctum chrisma," and "oleum infirmorium," and other labels with Latin lingo. And each oil must be used in its place. If a label is lost, or the wrong one is used in certain ceremonies, I suppose that would be sacramental suicide! I do not know what else one could call it, if they should get the labels mixed up and use the wrong holy oil.

Tenth: The Candles.

The lighted candles used in all services of Catholic liturgy are listed by Sullivan as an important sacramental. The candles must be burned no matter what is being done.

(1) The origin of candles. I will quote: "They were first employed to dispel the darkness when the faithful met before dawn, as a custom, in the gloom of the catacombs," says Sullivan, without accomodating us by giving us the date. Be-cause some Monks burned candles in the dark, before dawn, the Catholic Church made a sacramental out of it. As well sanctify an old fashion coal-oil lantern, because the faithful used them to go to brush arbor meetings to hear the gospel preached. Why not make a sacramental out of the old lantern?

(2) The meaning of candles. They make them typical- the wax and the wick typifying the body and soul of Jesus, and the flame his divine nature. But the New Testament does not consist in types. The Old Testament was the typical, the New Testament was the reality. The Catholic idea is contrary to types and antitypes as taught in the Bible.

Eleventh: Church Bells.

The church bell is a sacramental, said to be introduced by Pauline, bishop of Nola, 400 A. D., in Italy. All sorts of bells have become sacramental, so absolution of sin may now be had to the tuneof thechurch bell music!

Twelfth: Religious Medals.

Various medals resembling coins are used for the pur-pose of increasing devotion. Blessed cords, and sanctified girdles, are worn in honor of the saint by members of pious associations. Think about it-blessed belts, holy haberdashery! The many man-made customs of the Catholics only testify further to the meaningless relics of Rome.

Thirteenth: Incense Burning.

The sacramentals of ashes, palms, and incense are used by the Catholic Church as "reminders." (1) The use of blessed ashes for humiliation on Ash Wednesday, originating 1090

A. D., and Sullivan suggests that it "probably" started with Judaistic converts. (2) The blessed palms for use on Palm Sunday are intended "to remind" of the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. Catholics are great on "reminders." They must have good "forgetters." Jesus Christ set up the Lord's Supper to remind us, but he did not institute any of these Catholic reminders. (3) Aromatic incense, a perfumed resin, is just a reversion to the Jewish types of the Old Testa-ment. It was not given by Christ and does not belong to the New Testament Church.


In Rome's festival schedule, the Catholic Church has an ecclesiastical year-a church year-called the church's calendar. It consists of certain feasts and festivals, which I will now list.

First: The Feasts.

The feasts are divided into two classes: (1) The mov-able feasts, occurring earlier or later in various years. Easter, the first Sunday after the full moon of Vernal Equinox, from March 22 to April 25; Lent, before Easter, a penitential sea-son, when penitence is "in season" and in form only; Ascen-sion Day, forty days after Easter, it is assumed the Lord as-cended; Whitsunday, or Pentecost, coming ten days later to commemorate the "descent of the Holy Spirit"-all of these feasts are "movable," as well as conspicuously absent from the new testament. (2) The fixed feasts, which occur year after year on the same date. Christmas, December 25, as-sumed without authority to be the birthday of Jesus, and the week of religious celebration is purely a human institution, without scriptural sanction or warrant; Circumcision, January 1, eight days after the assumed birthday of Jesus; and Epi-phany, January 6, to celebrate the appearance of the Magi from the east at the manger of Bethlehem; and Purification, on February 22, which supposedly stands for the purification of "the blessed virgin," so many days after the birth of the child Jesus. Thus out of their own imagination, according to their own will, and by presumptuous human authority, the men of Roman Catholicism have set up feast days for reli-gious observance, in violation of new testament teaching against the observance of days and seasons (Rom. 14 and Gal. 4), and the will-worship of men (Col. 2) condemned

by Paul.

Second: The Festivals.

The festivals are feast days set apart year after year to honor saints and holy things: Pentecost, Corpus Christi, As-sumption, All Saints, All Souls, Immaculate Conception, are the leading festivals, all of which were set up by human assumption, having no scriptural sanction at all.

There are about eighteen of these festivals which are set up for reminders, reminding us, indeed, that a church need-ing that many self-imposed, human reminders is entirely too forgetful. Of them all Sullivan says: "They have all been established by the church, and not by any law or decree of God," Visible Church, p. 177. By Catholic admission, there-fore, these feasts and festivals are things which only high-handed assumption could institute and make sacramental.

Not having been established by "any law or decree of God," they are not "holy" but sinful.

Third: Holy Week.

This is a season of "penance" (?) as a means of "sancti-fication," and consists of Lent, Holy Thursday, and Good Friday. They belong to Catholic sacramentals but remind me of Paul's language: "You observe days and weeks and months. I am afraid of you." Paul would have been afraid of Roman Catholics had they existed in his day. He further said that since Jesus nailed the law to the cross, "Let no man judge you in respect of feast days, new moons, holy days, and sabbath days, which were shadows of the things to come." The Bible says that "holy days" have been abolished, but Roman Catholics observe "holy days;" therefore, the Catholic Church is against the Bible in their ecclesiastical calendar. The Bible nowhere mentions these Catholic days. The word for "Easter" in Acts is the word "passover" in the original, and is so translated everywhere else. Actually, the word "Easter" therefore is not the word of God-it is not the word Luke used. As for Lent, before Easter, it is the Catholic penitential week-lots of penitence (they do without chocolate candy, pie ala mode, strawberry shortcake, or a favorite dessert for a week) "penitence in season" only and in form only.

All such days are the "fixed" feasts of the Catholics-but they had better watch out for the "New Deal" may change them-like it did Thanksgiving!

But Rome must have "holy days" and "holy weeks" for revenue and patronage. The season of penance called Lent requires six and one-half weeks to fulfill in ostensible fast-ing only. No claim has been made for it before the fourth century, and taking this assumed date it remains an unscrip-tural institution. Their Holy Thursday is for commemora-tion of the Eucharist, or Lord's Supper, which is not only without precedent, but against the precedent of Acts 20:7, which specifies the first day of the week as the day upon


which to observe the institution of the Lord's Supper. No such assumption of authority has been given to any man by the Lord Jesus Christ. Their Good Friday, supposedly com-memorates the death of the Lord, but misses it, for three days and three nights in the grave cannot be counted by any meth-od of calculation or computation of three days and three nights from Friday evening to Sunday morning. This day Friday, set up as crucifixion day, is another relic of Rome which the protestant world has accepted. The Holy Saturday, is but a partial observance of an abrogated day, the old sabbath, celebrated with special fire, candles and ceremonies unknown to the word of God. And not satisfied with this long line of human festivities, ordinances and institutions, the Roman pontiffs and prelates continue to imagine and manufacture new ways to bind their human authority on their blinded communicants in their arrogance and disrespect for all divine authority and disregard of the Bible and the word of God.



In their unlimited mania for "sacramentals," Catholics go so far as to make certain books a "sacramental." Sullivan lists them as follows:

First: The Bible.

But in listing the Bible as a Catholic book they are in-consistent as it is a proscribed book in the Roman Catholic Church, forbidden to be read by the laity. They also attempt to make a distinction between the "Protestant Bible," and the "Catholic Bible."

(1) The addition of the uncanonical, apocryphal books of the period between the Testaments is an arbitrary Roman Catholic addition. The very word "apocrypha" means "doubt-ful." The apocryphal books do not even claim inspiration for themselves, and have no canonical characteristics. They show clearly, by both style and content, that they are secular-


but Rome has use for them and makes them a "sacramental."

(2) The vulgate.

This is the Latin translation of Hebrew and Chaldean manuscripts of copies by Jerome in 320-340, approved by the Council of Trent, 1545-1563, upon which Catholics lay great stress. It is used by the priests in their public services.

(3) Arbitrary translations and versions.

If any translation of the Bible by a non-Catholic is read by a Catholic, or found in possession, it is under the pain of mortal sin, unless surrendered to the Ordinary.

(4) The Douay version.

When the pressure became so great on the Catholic church on the point of the laity not having the Bible, they brought out their own version, the Douay Bible, and refuse to accept any other version.

Our Bible is translated by 148 of the world's ripest scholars, yet they talk about the errors in the Bible, and have much to say concerning 2,000 errors in the King James Bible. As for the 2,000 errors in the Bible, so much mentioned, they con-sist of such slight things as punctuation marks, obsolete words, typographical mistakes and errors of copyists, but not one single error in the translation of our English Bible involves the integrity of the word of God-not one vital error. That cannot be said of the Douay version. The criticism is a dodge on the part of the Catholic church to keep the Bible out of the hands of their members, and to give their members their own arbitrary interpretation, which they call a translation, but which in many instances is not based on the Greek words of the original text at all.

But we can take the Catholic Bible and refute Roman Catholic doctrine in discussion with any Catholic priest on earth. Yes, though their version is incorrect, and full of in-excusable presumption in translation, we can take their Douay


version, close up the Authorized version and the American Standard version, take the Douay translation, and disprove Roman Catholic doctrine on their own ground, by their own authority.

Second: The Liturgical Books.

These are their books of liturgy, and classify as follows:

(1) The missal-the mass book, used by the priest at the altar, containing all that is read or recited. Sullivan admits that this missal "developed slowly." (Visible Church, page 194) That proves again its human origin.

(2) The breviary. A book of compulsory daily prayers, which the priests are required to read, and other parts of the "divine office," recited daily, under the pain of mortal sin. They are under rules, like children, and fear to disobey their superiors.

(3) The divine office. This is a book of canonical hours said by priests in seven parts. The priest must take that "divine office" book of his, that ritual book of compulsory prayers, and read every word of it every twenty-four hours. If he does not do it he is under the pain of mortal sin. The head of the Catholic church who sits on the Vatican throne regi-ments every man of the priesthood to servile obedience.

But by special dispensation (permission) the priest can read ahead-he can read it through several times in one day, and the next, and read and read and read, until he gets caught up on reading, in which case he is not required to read for several days, or weeks. They are puppets of the pope.

(4) The ritual. This is a book of rites, words, and cere-monies. They have no need for the Bible, no use for it, and no respect for it. Sullivan makes the concession that "the present ritual was authorized by pope Paul V, 1614, and has been enlarged since that time." (Visible Church, page 196) It follows, therefore, that neither Christ nor his inspired apostles authorized it.


The Catholic Church prescribes books for the clergy, and proscribes books for the laity; it is a system of infidelity, of ignorance, and of slavery.



Every part of Catholic service is listed as a sacramental.

First: The Blessed Sacrament. The "blessed sacrament" is an observance of the doctrine of transubstantiation, in which the sacred host is elevated and exposed for adoration, and the people blessed with it. It is claimed that the sacred host is actually transformed into the body and blood of the Lord. But a chemical analysis of the bread and wine before the priest officiates and when he of-ficiates will disprove the claim of change in substance. A laboratory test will settle that question.

Second: Masses For The Dead.

On this point, let us hear J. F. Sullivan, an authority among Catholics, in his textbook which bears the Imprimatur of the Vatican, Visible Church, page 205: "Our church honors the dead bodies of her children because these bodies have been temples of the Holy Ghost, tabernacles of Jesus Christ, and instruments in God's service; and because they are destined to rise again on the day of the general judgment. She prays for the dead because she believes in the doctrine of the com-munion of saints; that is, that we who are here on earth are in communion with souls in purgatory and with saints and angels in heaven."

Thus the Catholic church teaches prayers for the dead against the many passages in the word of God, the Bible, which teach that probation ends with death.

And the Catholic church teaches the doctrine of baptism for the dead contrary to the conditions of pardon stated in the new testament based on individual obedience to the gos-


pel. Though claiming the expression "baptized for the dead" in 1 Cor. 15:29 as a precept for this Roman ordinance, their application of this language is a plain perversion of the pas-sage. The apostle's reference was to the martyrs who had died for believing and attesting the resurrection of the dead. They were immersed in sufferings for this belief and testi-mony. Furthermore, the Corinthians and Paul himself were in the constant danger of death for the same cause. The next verses say: "Why stand we in jeopardy every hour? . . . . . I die daily"; and "what advantage is it, if the dead rise not?" The context shows clearly that the apostle refers here to the baptism of suffering, not the ordinance of water baptism at all. It is the same kind of baptism mentioned in Lk. 12:50, where Jesus said, "I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened until it be accomplished," referring to his suffering on the cross. In the same sense Paul asks the Corinthians, What shall they do who like Jesus are baptized in these sufferings, if there is no resurrection of the dead;

what is the gain, and what are the inducements to such a baptism of suffering?

The Roman Catholic ritual of having a living person to be baptized for a dead person in order thus to obtain for-giveness of sins for a person after death, who did not obey the gospel in this life, through the vicarious act of another person on earth, destroys the gospel, denies every passage of scripture which teaches individual responsibility, and nulli-fies the entire divine scheme of human redemption. It is one other instance, in this long line of examples, of the pre-sumptious pontifical authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

Third: Litanies.

This is the repeating of prayers and salutations in various forms. It comes from the word lite (leetay) which means prayer. Only five litanies are approved-so Rome regiments praying! Catholics are forbidden to read the Bible and are not even free to pray.


Fourth: Church Music.

In the book, "Visible Church," page 221, Sullivan says, "Music is an auxiliary to worship," but the New Testament teaches that scriptural music, singing is worship-not a mere auxiliary. Such passages as Eph. 6:19, Col. 3:16, 1 Cor. 14:15, and Heb. 2:12, are sufficient on that point.

On page 223, Sullivan says, "The organ, because of its sonorous and majestic tone, has been considered from very early times to be the most appropriate instrument for religious services." But "the organ" was not "early" enough to be a New Testament element of music, and it was not used in the New Testament Church. It was authorized and introduced by pope Vitalian I, 670 A. D., and that is as "early" as its use can be established by any body of people claiming to be Christians. Its use threatened to divide the Catholic church, and the organ was withdrawn, and in 800 was re-introduced. Luther, Calvin, Knox, and Wesley, all opposed it and rejected it as a relic of Roman Catholicism. Luther called it an "en-sign of Baal." Knox called it "a chest of whistles." Wesley said that he had no objection to it in his chapel "provided it is neither heard nor seen." Calvin said "the Catholics foolish-lyborrowedit from the Jews." AndI will adda codicil tothe statement of Calvin-the Catholics borrowed it from the Jews; the Protestants borrowed it from the Catholics; the "Christian Church" borrowed it from the Protestants-but the New Testament church did not have it. Therefore, churches of Christ do not play mechanical music in the worship.

But even the singing of the Roman Catholic church is unscriptural and wrong, for their breviary and missal hymns consist of songs that set to music all the superstitutions and traditions of sacraments, and images, and relics of Rome, all of which are foreign to the character and intent and teaching of New Testament hymnology.

The ordinances of Rome are traditions of men. The apostle Paul commanded us, in 1 Cor. 11:2, to "keep the ordi-


nances as he delivered them to us. The Roman Catholic church has not done it, but has changed the ordinances at the will of a man who calls himself the pope.



The symbols of Catholicism have to do with the worship of art, architecture and ornaments, supposed to be "emblematic of the truths of Christianity," says Sullivan, page 231, of "Visible Church." Their human system has deified a long list of "sacramentals" which they have designated "symbols."

(1) The cross is called a sign of salvation.

(2) The lamb is listed an emblem of Christ.

(3) The dove is designated a symbol of the Holy Ghost.

(4) The pelican is a representation of the Redeemer, be-cause according to tradition she feeds her young with her own blood.

(5) The lion is the likeness of the Saviour, of the fold ofJudah.

(6) The serpent is the sign of sin.

(7) The fish typifies the early history of Christianity.

(8) Plants portray such things as peace in the olive branch, victory in the palm, chastity in the lily, and beauty in the rose.

Thus Roman Catholicism becomes the embodiment of naturalism, paganism, and Judaism-everything except Christi-anity-in their ponderous human organization.

(9) Monograms are included in their symbols-A. M. for Hail Mary.I.H.S.for Iesous, Hominum, Salvator-(Yay-zuss, of men, the Saviour); Alpha and Omega (beginning and end of all things). So they attempt to symbolize Christianity in monograms, making it all as mysterious and mystified as they can.

(10) Pictures and images of saints, ornamented with emblems, are listed with Catholic symbols. The halo means


grace and saintliness. The virgin Mary on the crescent moon, or globe, represents her as virgin queen. The axe means martyrdom. The banner and the cross represent missionaries; the tiara for the pope; the mitre for bishops; the crucifix for preachers; and the crown of thorns for a life of mortification.

Composed of everything the imagination of all the vision-aries and fanatics combined for centuries could devise into liturgy, Roman Catholicism is nothing short of a system of idolatry and paganism in a horrid caricature of Christianity. In no sense of the term can it be called Christianity.



Even the societies of the Catholic religion are sacramentals. They are legion-too numerous for mention, much less dis-cussion. The religious societies for the laity are divided into three classes:

(1) Confraternities, canonically erected, that is, existing by canon law for works of piety and charity (such as the Holy Name Society).

(2) Pious associations, not canonical, such as unions and leagues, for example. Society of St. Vincent, and league of Sacred Heart.

(3) Societies not distinctly religious, though all members are Catholics, such as, Knights of Columbus-which means it is political in character and aim, and that means danger to government-let a red flag of warning be raised everywhere they hold their secret conclaves. The Knights of Columbus is the largest fraternal secret society of Catholic men in this country, and their power in politics, government and educa-tion, in all of our institutions, can hardly be estimated. It is believed by many Americans, including statesmen, editors, preachers, and business men, that Knights of Columbus exist for politics and propaganda, secret and seditious in character, and to be the "fifth column" of the pope of Rome in the


United States of America today. But it is difficult to convict organizations wrapped in the folds of secrecy, whether it be the German Bund, Russian Communist, or Catholic Knights of Columbus. Of course, Catholics hate Communists, but it is because Catholicism is communism, and it is the hatred of competitive systems of communism. Russian communism is a state-owned people. Catholic communism, by union of church and state would be Catholic-owned people, regi-mented down to every home and every individual-and that is communism at its worst. I want neither-but between the two give me Russia rather than Rome. The Vatican is worse than the Kremlin. In communism Satan seeks to establish atheism; but in Catholicism he endeavors to dethrone Christi-anity. Lord give us neither, but deliver us from both.



Obligations are a sacramental in the Catholic church- tell me something that is not! Among these are:

(1) Fasting and abstinence.

These are penances prescribed by the church. The peni-tential fast is to deprive oneself of food-but the "penitential fast" allows one full meal a day! Many people today would be glad to have a penitential fast! This is an example of the hollow, empty form of godliness which Catholicism pretends.

And abstinence only requires meatless days. Who but a glutton wants meat every day, anyway? But canon law fixes days for fasting and abstinence, hence Rome regiments eating and dieting, and would control every detail of life. Paul's reference to the Seducer who would "forbid marrying," and command "abstaining from meats," is a practical application, if not an apostolic prophecy.

(2) Invocation and canonization of saints.

The invocations are prayers to saints. The Latria (Lah-tree-ah) is adoration of God. The Dulia (Doo-lee-ah) is


veneration of saints. The Hyper-dulia is higher veneration of Mary queen of the saints.

Who is a saint in Catholic liturgy? No one living-there are no living saints in Catholicism, they are all dead-dead long enough for all their defects to be forgotten, and dead long enough for everybody else to be dead who ever knew anything about their defects-then they are "canonized" and presto! they are "saints"; But Paul addresses the Phillippian epistle to "saints at Philippi"--and I do not think his letter was addressed to the cemetery, nor delivered to a tomb. They were living andtheywere saints. In the New Testament saints are Christians-just another word for Christians. Saints are not petrified mummies of the middle ages, deified in the church today.

What is praying to or through a saint? Well, something like this: select your patron saint, or matron saint, and say, "Lord, I am a wretch without worth or merit or virtue-but my saint has plenty of all those things to spare; Lord, transfer some of my saint's virtue to my own ledger or account, and I can be saved, too"!

What is canonization? It is a precept of the sovereign pontiff, the pope commands public veneration of a dead old person-never a living one-by the whole church.

Thus Rome regiments worship, commanding things God never commanded. An American Catholic can not even choose whom he wishes to venerate, if anybody, but must take some old bald-headed bearded monk of a medieval mon-astery, selected by an Italian pope secluded in a Vatican castle.

The canonization procedure is long, lasting years, even centuries, says Sullivan, in Visible Church, p. 259. But how "long" was such a procedure prescribed in the New Testa-ment?

(3) Images, relics, pilgrimmages, indulgences, jubilees - all of these sum up the duties of Catholic veneration.

Images, are portraits of Christ and his "holiest" servants.

Relics are objects directly connected with the person or bodies of saints.

Pilgrimages are journeys to shrines and holy places in fulfillment of a vow.

Indulgences is remission in whole or in part of temporal punishment due to sin after sacramental absolution. It originated in the ninth century, and degenerated into com-mercial corruption by the selling of indulgences in the six-teenth century.

Jubilee is a year of special indulgence granted by a pope -whoopee, hooray, eat, drink, and play; dance, sin, and be gay -the jubilee is on-a whole year of indulgence.

Rites in Catholic liturgy are ceremonies and functions of the religious body. They have the Latin rite, the Roman rite, the Byzantine rite, the Asiatic rite, the African rite, the Syrian and Chaldean rites, the Abysinian rite and the Ethiopian rite, but no New Testament right!

The Roman Catholic church is a human, man-made, political, ecclesiastical hierarchy, lacking all the characteristics of the New Testament Church-it is not apostolic, it is not catholic, it is not holy, it is not the church, and is therefore not the "Holy Apostolical Roman Catholic Church" at all. It is not the church of Christ in any sense, in whole or in part.



It has been repeatedly asserted from this platform in this series of addresses that the "Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church," so called, is not holy, is not apostolic, is not catholic, and being mixed as it has through the years with Teutonism, it is not even Roman, but actually a corrupted mongrel political and ecclesiastical apostasy-actually a horrid carica-ture in both politics and religion and is not the church.

1 propose now to prove by the Bible that the Roman Catholic church lacks all of the characteristics of the church revealed in the New Testament, the church of Christ, and that there is actually not one point of identity between them.

We shall now take the doctrine and dogmas of Roman Catholicism one by one and subject them to the scrutiny of the scriptures.


This is the most characteristic dogma of Roman Cathol-icism. Upon this dogma Catholicism stands or falls. The pretentions of the Roman church are founded on claims of infallibility. It is the chief stone of the Roman arch. Dis-believe it and you abandon all Catholic communion; reject it and you are immediately excommunicated and automatically anathematized.

First: The Meaning Of Infallibility. The dogma of infallibility carries in its very claim certain undeniable conclusions.

(1) It exempts the pope from error.

If the dictum be true, (a) it requires the acceptance of all the papal bulls of medieval and modern history as ab-


solute truth; (b) it settles all controversies on faith, morals and philosophy-settled by one man's word. If the claim is false, (a) it is the rankest presumption ever founded on the mutable word of a fallible man; (b) the basest blasphemy ever uttered by an antichrist.

(2) It invests the pope with divine power.

If that is true, (a) his ex cathedra utterances are inspired and inerrant; (b) his encyclicals are irreformable and irrevoc-able. If false, (a) his seat is Satan's throne, and (b) his doctrines are Satan's decrees.

Second: The Extent Of Infallibility.

The scepter of infallibility would hold sway in every realm of human interest.

(1) Over the scriptures.

The Council of Trent which convened in the sixteenth century, issued the following decrees: (a) that Catholics cannot read a translation of the scriptures in the common vernacular without written permission; (b) that the pope has the sole right to judge the meaning of the scriptures and interpret them; (c) that the decrees were immutable and no general council could ever contravene them. These were edicts of Trent, the council that met to define doctrines, issue decrees and condemn heretics, and this is therefore the law of the Catholic church on Bible reading.

(2) Over the church.

This same Catholic council decreed: (a) that the pope has all jurisdiction over the universal church, "the father and governor of all the faithful"; (b) that no appeal can be made from the pope's decision to any council "as to a higher power."

Look at the limitations-it claims for the man on the Vatican throne-"the full amplitude of jurisdiction," that this man is "the father and governor of all the faithful," declaring that his "definitions" of the scriptures are "infallible and irreformable," and that it is unlawful to appeal from "judg-ments" issued by the man of Rome! What a bold and brazen claim of power for one man to assert over his fellow man, but that is an example of the audacity of the pope of Rome.

(3) Over temporal affairs.

The proof that the pope of Rome claims supreme and absolute authority in both spiritual and temporal affairs, in both religion and politics is found in the pages of their own books.

The canon law of the papacy, the acknowledged and fundamental code of the Roman church, as set forth by Von Schulte, professor of canonical law at Prague, stipulates that "all human power is under the pope"; that "the temporal powers must act unconditionally" in accordance with his orders; that the pope is "empowered" to grant or to take away any temporal possession; that "the pope has the right to give" countries and nations which are non-catholic to catholic regents; that the pope has the right "to practice the un-conditional" censure of books, to annul state laws, punish temporal rulers, annul marriage relations, and release from all civil obligations, oaths, and vows of legal contract, and that "the execution of papal commands against heretics causes remission of sins," to the extent that "he who kills one that is excommunicated is no murderer." All of that and more of the same are contained in Professor Von Schulte's (a Roman Catholic authority) stipulations of the canon law of the papacy for the use of the church.

In addition to that document consider the contents of the syllabus of Pius IX, and if you cannot see the dreadful danger in the claims by the pope of the right to all earthly power over all things temporal and spiritual, you are looking the other way. There can be no mistake about the words of these authoritative documents. The pope claims the right to control the individual, body and soul, to govern the


country, regulate all reading, religious, philosophical or scien-tific, and that what he asserts must be believed, what he com-mands must be obeyed.

Third: The Evidence From The Scriptures.

Leaving the assertions of the pope, and referring to the scriptures in search of evidence, we find nothing said of the pope, a supreme earthly head of the church. Let us list a few passages bearing on that question.

1. Matt.23:8-10: "Be not any of you called Rabbi .... and call no man father upon this earth." Call no man pope!

2. Eph. 4:11: "He gave some to be apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists, and teachers"-but no pope!

3. Matt. 16:13-18: "Thou are Peter" (stone) . . . ."And upon this rock" (Christ).

Notice thou stone-this rock-Peter was the stone, Christ was the rock-and it takes the pope's only passage away from him. The whole end and aim of the question of Matt. 16:18-20 was not Peter, but Christ. Paul, the apostle of Christ, settles that question for sure in I Cor. 3:10-11. "As a wise master-builder I have laid the foundation and another buildeth thereupon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." No other foundation-no other head-than Jesus Christ!

4. Matt. 18:18: "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

It is asserted by Roman Catholics that the Lord's language to Peter in Matt. 16:18-20 conferred on Peter singly the "keys of the kingdom," and gave him singular power to "bind and loose." But the same language is used by the Lord in Matt.

18:18 when he addressed the twelve, not singly but collectively, showing that Peter had no authority that all did not have, and exercised no power that all did not exercise, and possessed no keys that all did not possess. The whole claim of the Catholics concerning Peter's primacy over the twelve is a fallacy.

(5) Jno. 20:23: "Whose soever sins ye remit shall be re-mitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."

These words were addressed to all the twelve. There is no difference in the "binding and loosing" of Matt. 16:20, and the "remitting and retaining" of Jno. 20:23. Peter had no keys exclusively his, and no power peculiarly his. It was a thing the apostles all had in common.

(6) Matt. 20:25-27: "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you.

Can you imagine that a pope ever read that? Or can you feature a pope saying it to Catholic subjects, or to any-body else? There was no prominence, much less preeminence, claimed by any of the apostles of Jesus Christ.

(7) Peter neither claimed nor exercised authority over other apostles. In his first epistle, 1 Pet. 1:1, he addressed himself to them, "Peter, an apostle"-not "prince of apostles," as the pope is called; and in his second epistle, 3 Pet. 2:1, he said, "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle"- not "the servants of servants"-as the pope is called. Furthermore, in 1 Pet. 5:1, Peter refers to himself as "an elder," a co-elder, a fellow-elder. If Peter had been the head, the vicar, the chief apostle, the prince of apostles-and all the things the pope claims-would he not have known it?

(8 ) There is nothing in the Acts of Apostles about Peter's supremacy. In the book of Acts there are twenty-eight chapters about the apostles and their preaching-but not one word about Peter the pope!

In Acts 8:14 the apostles at Jerusalem "sent unto them Peter and John." Here Peter was subject to his brethren, the same as John, and was "sent" by the other apostles to Sa-maria. Who ever heard of the pope being "sent" on an errand for any purpose by anybody?

In Acts 15:2 on the question of circumcision Paul and others went to Jerusalem "unto the apostles and elders"- they did not go to Peter. In verse 6, "the apostles and elders came together to consider the matter"-Peter did not decide it. In verse 19, James said, "My sentence is"-which shows that if any apostle "presided," it was James, not Peter.

(9) There is nothing in Paul's writings about Peter being the pope.

In 1 Cor. 1:12 he referred to "Paul, Apollos and Cephas" (Peter), and in 1 Cor. 3:4-5 he said they all were "only ministers through whom ye believed." If Peter had been the pope, would Paul have so classified him along with himself and Apollos as "only a minister," as themselves?

In 1 Cor. 9:5 Paul speaks of his right to "lead about a wife," as the other apostles, "and Cephas" (Peter)-so Peter hada wife andwas leading her about. Rather singular business for a pope-don't you think?

In 2 Cor. 11:5 Paul said that he was "not a whit behind them all"-that is "all" of the other apostles-but if Peter was the pope he was a considerable "whit" behind one of them!

In Gal. 2:11-14 Paul "withstood Peter to his face," said that he was to be "blamed for not walking uprightly according to the truth," and he rebuked Peter "before them all." Paul rebuked the pope! And had the audacity to do it before them all!

In all of Paul's writings there is no hint that Peter was pope. He wrote by the Holy Spirit, but in all his epistles,


no allusion to Peter as the pope. He wrote by inspiration, but in all his letters not a reference to Peter as the pope.

(10) If Christ had established such an office, he would have defined it.

When God appointed the Levitical priesthood, he defined its qualifications and its powers. When God appointed a civil government, he gave a code of laws by which to admin-ister it. When God appointed elders in the New Testament church, he named their qualifications and duties. But there is no appointment mentioned and no provision made for a pope in all the New Testament. Is it not strange, if his office is divine?

Fourth: The Evidence From The Corroborative Testimony Of History.

A few simple unimpeachable facts will add to the weak-ness, and further emphasize the falsity of the Catholic claim that Peter was pope.

(1) In all the early "Christian writings" there is no men-tion, not even an inference, of the existence of the pope.

(2) The records of the "Councils" for the first six cen-turies contain not even a reference to an allusion to the existence of a pope.

(3) The popes that were declared to be heretical deny claims of infallibility, and therefore disprove the existence of an infallible pope.

(4) The "Great Interregnum"-the seventy-year period of history when there was no pope, when the pope resigned and left "St. Peter's Chair" vacant, then afterward, when for fifty years there were two popes, and two existing lines of popes, claiming infallibility-all such facts blotting the pages of Rom-an Catholic history prove their claims of papal infallibility to be false. Later than that there were even three-Benedict XIII, Gregory XII and John XXII, all claiming to be pope at the


same time, all claiming infallibility-and incidentally, all proving their own claims false.

(5) The wickedness of the papal throne and of the popes that sat on it disprove the claim of infallibility.

Archbishop Purcell, who debated Alexander Campbell, said: "Without doubt some popes are in hell." Were the popes, now in hell, infallible? If not, how can any one know if any pope is infallible? Is moral corruption compatible with infallibility?

(6) The controversies of the popes disprove the claim of infallibility. There was the age-long argument over whether infallibility was in the church, the pope or the council. The legislative halls of a nation never witnessed more wire-pulling politics than the history of the Vatican Council records, when in 1870 it declared that infallibility should henceforth reside in the pope personally, instead of the church, or any council. So a fallible council conferred infallibility on the pope! When did the council reclaim authority to declare a pope infallible?

(7) The changes in the Catechism disprove the claim of infallibility. Prior to 1870 the Catechism plainly said: "It (infallibility) is no article of Catholic faith." Since 1870 it says: "In Catechisms of both old and young, it is taught." Now that fact alone disproves it-and the whole infallibility claim is the greatest farce ever enacted in the name of God or imposed on the enslaved victims of an arrogant impostor, claiming titles, prerogatives and powers that belong only to God.



In every Catholic church there is a curtained recess, the confessional box. Here the penitent meets the priests; the penitent kneeling, the priest seated. The priest questions, the penitent answers. All the deeds and desires, thoughts and words, since last the penitent met the priest in the box, must


be confessed and related. I want to give you the facts and let you see the true picture of this abominable thing.

First: Auricular Confession.

The institution derives its name from the Latin word "auris" which means "ear"-a confession made into the priest's ear-therefore "auricular." There married women confess into the ears of an unmarried priest, their personal secrets, their family secrets and their husband's business secrets.

Unprotected girls are thrown into the power of bachelor priests, who cross-examine them on sins they fail voluntarily to mention. There they are introduced to sentiments of shame, of disgust, and infamies-things which are ignored in any respectable home are there made subjects for ques-tioning, and innocent, virtuous girls are thus subjected to un-clean and nauseating cross-examination which would make anybody but a licentious Catholic priest blush with embar-rassment.

Second: The Origin Of The Confessional.

It was unknown in the primitive days of Christianity and was an abomination to the medieval ages. It became a doctrine and practice of the Catholic church in 1215 after the Council of Lateran, and originated with Innocent III, known as the criminal pope of the inquisition. It is therefore a human invention, the continuance of which depends on the ignorance of its origin. It took Satan 1200 years to introduce it, and all the intrigue of Catholic prelates to maintain it.

Third: Results Of The Confessional.

The auricular confessional was not designed for religious purposes.

(1) It makes forgiveness of sins a business transaction.

It is a license to sin. Attend the confessional, receive ab-solution, run up a score with the priest, and Rome gets the revenue! It offers safety where there is no shelter and peace where there is no pardon.

(2) It is an institution of systematized degeneracy.

It is, first of all, a pitfall to priests. They are unmarried men, and men of like passions with others, and human nature being what it is, the Catholic confessional is against human nature. Only gross immorality can be the result. David fell before an unchaste display of Bathsheba. Samson yielded to the temptations of Delilah-and the reputation of Catholic priests does not encourage us to believe that they are as a class of men better than David or stronger than Samson! Possibly, as men they would be no worse than the rest of Adam's race, but surrounded from day to day with the enticement of con-fessing women, they come out of the moral conflict mortally wounded.

It is, in the second place, a pitfall to women. It teaches them to lie. Many who enter the confessional box have a sense of propriety and virtue beyond that of the confessors. They would rather be doomed to damnation, or delivered to purga-tory than answer "yes" to questions of a prying priest, seeking to chisel into the sacred precincts of their soul, and to coerce them into divulging sins to a sinful man, which God alone has the right to know, and through his Son alone, the power to forgive.

It is a cause of distress and of despair. The picture of the anguish of soul of a woman at the feet of her Catholic confessor is a tragic scene. There she would prefer death to confession to him of secrets required of her on the pain of purgatorial fires. Rather than be damned she speaks un-mentionable things into the ear of a priest too eager to hear them. Some books, by ex-nuns, others by ex-priests, offer testimony to the seductions of the confessional and prove the consequences to be immoral and criminal. According to "The Priest, The Woman, And The Confessional," page 65, a dying priest once confessed to having scandalized a thousand women!


Liguori, Catholic authority, which was quoted for important evidence in the Campbell-Purcell Debate, said a Lady Superior must watch priests while they confess nuns-for the sake of decency and safety-because good priests, he said, are very, very rare! Read the encyclicals of Piuses and Gregorys, and other popes, and it will be seen that some priests have as many women serving them as Brigham Young, the Mormon prophet.

Fourth: Contrary To The Scriptures.

The testimony of both the old Testament and the new Testament is against this institution of Rome.

(1) In the old Testament there is nothing said of auricular confessions and priestly absolutions. There was nothing of that descriptions in the tabernacle of Moses nor in the temple of Solomon. Even the proud Pharisee never presumed to forgive sins-and they charged Jesus in Mark 2:7 with "blas-phemy," because none can forgive sins but "God only."

David said, "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned" (Psa. 51:4), and "I will confess my transgressions unto thee" (Psa. 32:5). Isaiah said, "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." (Isa. 1:18) Again, "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." (Isa. 55:7)

These are the landmarks of mercy in the Old Testament, the words of God in the former dispensation. It means that not even in the old covenant did any priest, under a system of priests, dare to take the place of God.

(2) In the New Testament there is no command and no example for Christians confessing to and obtaining absolu-tion from a priest, nor to or by an apostle or evangelist of Jesus Christ.


God's plan is that which is in the New Testament, and it is not the complex, complicated forms of Catholic catechisms.

In the great commission, Matt. 28:18-20, Jesus Christ commanded the apostles to "teach them to observe all things" that he had commanded, but nowhere did the apostles teach anyone to "observe" the "confessional"; it was therefore not commanded by Christ and was not included in the great com-mission. The divine constitution, of which the commission was but a summary, contains no confessional.

In Acts 2, the great commission was executed, and those who "received the word" and were baptized, continued in the "apostles doctrine"-but the apostles doctrine contained no reference to such a thing as the Roman Catholic confessional.

In Acts 8, Simon Magus was commanded to "repent and pray God" to be forgiven, but he was not ordered to confess hissinsto a priest.

In 1 John 2:1-2, the children of God are commanded to confess their sins in prayer to Jesus Christ, our "Advocate with the Father"-not to a Roman priest in a Catholic con-fessional box.

In Heb. 4:14-18, the apostle teaches that Christians have full and complete access to God through Jesus Christ, our high priest, and may come "boldly" without human media-tion to the "throne of grace" through Him.

In the fourteen epistles of Paul-Romans to Hebrews- this "called" apostle, "not of man neither by man but by Jesus Christ," speaks of all the duties imposed upon the human conscience with minute instructions to all Christians individually and collectively-but not one word concerning an auricular confessional, nor anything from which a "sacra-ment" could be inferred or imagined.

In James 5:16, the command to "confess your sins one to another" cannot be stretched to mean a Catholic priest.

It means members to each other as members-and applies to sins against each other, and to the duty of forgiveness, when we ask God to forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. The New Testament teaches two confessions of sin, first, to God; second, to anyone wronged. These two confessions are taught in the Bible, but for the Roman Catholic auricular confession there is not a command or an example, not a reference, or an inference; not an allusion or an intimation, in short, not one hint.

The apostles preached faith, repentance, baptism for the remission of sins to alien sinners, and repentance and prayer to God to erring children of God, who were commanded to confess their sins to God, who is declared faithful to forgive all unrighteousness.

Fifth: Some Sober Questions On The Confessional.

There are a few questions to men and women, which if honestly answered would close the confessional booth.

(1) A word to Catholic women. Have you been embar-rassed, and have you blushed over the questions at the confes-sion box? Realizing that what tempts women will also tempt men, knowing the priest to be a man, have you not felt a com-plicity in the iniquity of the confessional? Do you not feel a sense of unfaithfulness to your husband when *confiding in the priest, who is simply another man? Is it not your duty rather to go to your husband for comfort in distress and to God for forgiveness of sin?

(2) A word to Catholic husbands. Do you know what passes between your wife and the priest? Do you think the priest has the right to interrogate and cross-examine your wife about the secrets of life and home? Is it right for your wife to have two men to respect and obey-her husband and her priest? Is it right for her to be subject to another man and to reveal her secrets to him? Do you know that priests have ruined many women? You should reflect on the questions,


husbands and fathers, whether Catholics or non-Catholics and never allow your wife or daughter to be imposed upon by a priest, and help us to rescue others from the snare of the Roman Catholic confessional box.

Sixth: The Potential Influence Of The Confessional As An Avenue Of Information.

The pope of Rome has tens of thousands of priests who have the opportunity daily of corrupting the minds and hearts of millions through the confessional.

What an avenue to furnish information to the priests! It is the keyhole through which the priest peeps into the homes of millions. The confessional becomes the source of knowledge and the channel of information to the pope from all over the world. It is the pipe-line from the homes of every nation to the office of the head of a foreign state-the Vatican. It gives the Roman bishop advantage over all classes of men. It is the corner stone of their stupendous power, and the secret of their almost irresistible influence. It is the most tremendous tribunal ever invented. The family, the business, the schools, society, politics, and religion are all brought under its dominion.

Civil liberty and the auricular confessional cannot exer-cise dominion side by side, one must fall. Let liberty pre-vail and sweep away that relic of Rome, the auricular con-fessional or the confessional, if it prevails, will sweep away liberty-all liberty, civil and religious.



The sacrament of celibacy was first enjoined at Rome by Gregory VII in 1073 A. D., and was established in England by Archbishop Anselm in 1175. It is the pope's greatest source of power in the church through the clergy.

The apostle Paul said that the doctrine of "forbidding to marry" was one of the specific things the Spirit "saith expressly" would mark the seductions described in 1 Tim. 4:1-3. For centuries celibacy had been a dogma of Catholicism. The church of Rome has imposed universal celibacy on all the clergy from pope to priest, and from the lowest deacon to the highest bishop.

In exposing these unscriptural sacraments of Rome, we are often accused of slander. But to tell the truth is not slander. To slander is to injure by speaking falsely and maliciously. The Bible itself is full of scathing syllables of withering severity in the censure of opposers of truth. In the Bible, such examples as Samuel to Saul, Elijah to Ahab, Jeremiah to Israel, Daniel to Belshazzar, John to Herod, Paul to Elymas. In history such examples as Knox to the ruler of Scotland, Luther to the popes, Calvin to the priests. We are condemning the dogmas of Rome in the same spirit, hoping in a measure for the same results.

The Catholic doctrine of celibacy is a bad doctrine, an unsavory thing to talk about, much less preach about, but it is a cardinal codicil in Rome's canon law and must there-fore be exposed in language as drastic as the doctrine de-mands. We shall therefore speak plainly, and occasionally painfully, in castigating this Catholic sacrament of celibacy.

First: The Alleged Reasons For Celibacy.

When plain passages of scriptures, which show that this institution of celibacy does not exist by divine authority, are presented to Catholic priests, they resort to every artifice of sophistry in their effort to change the meaning of inspired statements.

(1) It is claimed that when Peter became the pope he separated from the wife he once had, mentioned in Matt.

8:14. They claim that Matt. 19:27, where Jesus said to Peter that "everyone that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sis-ters, or fathers, or mothers, or wife, or children, or lands," means that Peter left his wife, deserted and abandoned her.


In the first place, that view of the statement of Jesus cannot be true because Paul plainly said in 1 Cor. 9:5 that Peter's wife travelled with him-Peter was "leading her about"-so that settles that.

In the second place, if the word "forsake" in Matt. 19:27 means to desert, or abandon, then when Jesus said that any one not willing to forsake father or mother could not be his disciple, it applies not only to a priest but to all, and means that to be a Christian everyone must abandon his parents. Such is not the meaning of the passage. Peter "left all and followed" Jesus, depriving himself of home and all the re-lationships it affords-but he did not abandon his wife. In my own work of preaching I have left all to preach the gospel-including home, and have been deprived of its associa-tion-but I have never deserted my wife nor abandoned my children. And I know Peter did not do so, for Paul said that he had as much right "to lead about a wife" as Peter had. Peter evidently took his wife with him to some places. If the brethren then were like some of them now, I imagine they grumbled because he brought his wife, and did not invite him back for another meeting! But the fact remains that Peter not only had a wife-he kept his wife-led her about with him-and Rome is wrong.

(2) It is claimed that when Jesus said in Matt. 22:30 that in the resurrection they do not marry but are as angels, that celibacy (not marrying) raises one to the dignity of angels! The fallacy of that is seen at a glance-the resurrection state, not celibacy, is the subject of that passage. Besides, it was not God's plan to populate this world with angels for he instituted marriage and commanded that the earth be multiplied and replenished. If all men obeyed Catholic doctrine, that com-mand of God could not be obeyed, and the bachelor priests could have no women to patronize their confessional, and the Roman Catholic church could not exist. They teach a doctrine, which, if all men practiced, would destroy the institution that upholds it.


(3) It is claimed that when Paul referred to Peter leading about a wife that it only meant a woman (not a wife)- and the Catholic Bible so translates it. Priests can have a woman for a housekeeper, have a clothes-mender and a button-sew-on-er but cannot have a wife! But that is not what Paul said-Paul simply stated that he had the same right to have a wife, and take her with him as other apostles and Peter had-and nothing else can be made of it.

(4) The real reason for the doctrine of celibacy can be put in two words-pontifical dominion. If the priests had wives and families it would restrict their allegiance to the pope-the priest's loyalty to the family, in all the nations of the world, would limit the Holy See of Rome. Only through celibacy of the clergy can the pope hold papal jurisdiction. When the priest takes the vow of celibacy, he has no ties which bind him to home or to country, and he is henceforth the vassal of his Vatican superior.

Second: The Inevitable Results Of Celibacy.

The fruits of any doctrine, like a tree, determine whether it be good or evil, for "by their fruits ye shall know them." It is, therefore, no wrong but altogether proper to show the logical consequences and natural results of celibacy.

(1) Domesticism.

That is the name for the keeping of women as inmates in the dwellings of the priest, to superintend duties and domes-tic concerns of the house; that priests may enjoy society, avoid solitude, and have companionship without marriage or its responsibilities. The result is that domestic familiarity be-comes common knowledge. The "spiritual consolations" turn to fleshly relations.

(2) Concubinage.

The records of faithful histories relate the natural result of celibacy to be concubinage-and their accounts are appalling.


A "penitent woman" has not far to go for absolution, because "a guilty mistress confesses to a guilty priest," in the same house.

The indisputable proof of this is found in Alexander Campbell's quotation from St. Liguori, Catholic authority in the Campbell-Purcell Debate.

(3) Clandestine marriage. The records hold evidence of priests who evaded celibacy by secret marriage. Their conscience recoiled at the thought of fornication, and to keep conscience they married secretly,

thus taking recourse to the God-made law of marriage against the man-made canons of Catholic councils.

(4) The nunnery.

In the nunnery the inmates take oath to obey the priest in all things-this many nuns have known, according to abundant testimony, to their sorrow and shame. Thus it is that nunneries and convents, thought to be places of purity, have been declared by the testimony of some, who experienced the imprisonment, to be pits of perdition instead.

Italy once pronounced a curse on convents-and Italy is the one nation that ought to know. Once Germany passed a law, it is related, requiring the inspection of convents four times a year by the government, or else they must disband- and it is stated that they disbanded, rather than be inspected, until Bismark submitted to the pope and allowed them to open again.

The fact remains that the unmarried priests have free access to convents and nunneries-why should the govern-ment of the United States, or any other country, tolerate an institution judged and condemned by the testimony of the centuries as unlawful and corrupt.

(5) Infanticide.

Testimonies regarding these corruptions are horrifying. Luther in Table Talks, testified that the bottom of a pool near


a convent was covered with bones of infants. Maria Monk, in "Black Nunnery," testified that infants were slaughtered, and Hogan relates that "the strangling and pulling to death of infants is a common crime in papish nunneries"-Brandt,

p. 87.

(6) Substitution for marriage.

This is an institution sanctioned by Pius IX (author of the syllabus) in 1866-and is what its name implies-a society of women, sworn to submit to the priests with the blessings of the church.

Third: The Scriptures Versus Celibacy.

The Bible declares plainly that marriage is the natural state (Gen. 1:18); that God made this law for man and neither man nor woman is complete without it. The New Testament teaches the same truth in much the same language. (1 Cor. 11:11) But celibacy is opposed to man's nature, and is there-fore contrary to the law of nature.

Through marriage the home exists, and through the home society is blessed. The priest has no home, but through the institutions of Catholicism he invades and poisons the homes of all who are deceived and deluded by the dogmas of Rome. Celibacy is opposed to the home, and is therefore opposed to the law of society, as taught in the Bible.

(1) In the Old Testament.

God united the first pair and called them man and wife; under the Mosaic law priests married, and Aaron the high priest, had sons; the Aaronic priesthood were priests by birth-right, an office transmitted through marriage, having no suc-cessors without marriage; the Jews rejected both celibacy and maidenhood, the patriarchs Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were married, and Moses was married, and the prophets from Samuel on were parents and had sons and daughters. Celibacy is opposed to these facts, and is therefore contrary to God's moral law of the Old Testament.

(2) In the New Testament.

Neither Christ nor his apostles laid any restraint on connubial union; Jesus sanctioned the institution by gracing the marriage at Cana with his presence (Jno. 2:1); and de-clared what God joins together no man shall sever (Matt. 19:5); Paul made marriage a symbol of the union between Christ and the church (Eph. 5:30); Peter was married (Matt. 8:14); Paul had a right to be (1 Cor. 9:5); and the bishops of the New Testament church were married men (1 Tim. 3:1-13).

The sacrament of celibacy is opposed to all of these prin-ciples and is therefore contrary to nature, to the home, to society and to the scriptures.



The canons of the Council of Trent concerning "the Eu-charist" declared, first, that "whosoever shall deny that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the entire Christ; but shall say that he is in it only as in a sign, or a figure of virtue; let him be accursed; second, that "whosoever shall deny" that the "whole substance of the bread" and the "whole substance of the wine" are converted into the body and the blood of Christ, "only the forms of the bread and wine remaining," which doctrine "the Catholic church most aptly calls "transubstantiation" is accursed-"let him be accursed;" third, that "whosoever" (they are strong on these whosoevers!) shall deny that the body and blood of the Lord "does not remain in the hosts, or consecrated mor-sels which are reserved or left after the communion," is also "accursed;" fourth, "whosoever shall say that Christ, as ex-hibited in the Eucharist is eaten spiritually, and not also


sacramentally and really," is also to be "accursed"-yes, after each pronouncement comes that onus of Roman Catholic anathema, "let him be accursed."

Upon the papal assumptions of that "canon," based solely on the human authority of a Catholic council, I want to make some pointed observations.

First: Transubstantiation Destroys The Nature Of Institution As Set Forth In 1 Cor. 1:23.

(1) The Lord's Supper is a memorial-"in memory" of Christ. A sign is something "signified." The doctrine of transubstantiation takes away the memorial and the sign and puts the object commemorated, or the thing signified, in its place.

(2) Jesus was not dead when he set up the institution of the Lord's Supper, and ate it, as recorded in Matt. 26:26. Did he eat, and then give his body to the disciples? Did he drink, and pass to them his own blood? The existence of his body made it impossible for such to be so then, but the elements of the supper means the same now as then, no more, no less. Nothing can be more impossible than this Catholic dogma, and nothing more incompatible with sense or scripture. Second: Transubstantiation Is Contrary To The Use Of Language.

(1) It is insisted that Matt. 26:26 says "this is my body"- not "represents" my body. But in Jno. 14:6 Jesus said, "I am the way," and he did not say "represent"-is he a "graded," "improved" or "paved" road?

(2) In Jno. 10:9 Jesus said, "I am the door"-he did not say that he represented a door-so, is he paneled, glassed or solid, walnut, oak or mahogany? In John 15: he said, "I am the vine"-is that literal? If so, are disciples literal branches?


(3) In Matt. 5:13-14 Jesus said, "Ye are the light of the world"-incandescent, fluorescent, or neon? And-"Ye are the salt of the earth"-so we are all sodium chloride!

(4) Of the fruit of the vine Jesus said, "this cup is the new testament in my blood."-Jesus did not say the fruit of the vine "represented" a cup or was a cup-but was the cup; and he did not say the "cup" represented the new testament- he said the cup is the new testament; so, according to Catholics, we must take all of that literally, and the fruit of the vine is a literal cup, and that literal cup is literally the new testament. So their rule on the bread being the literal body works against itself on the cup.

Third: Transubstantiation Is Contrary To The Mean-ing Of A Memorial.

A memorial institution is for the absent not for the present. Paul said the bread and cup were for a memorial, observed in remembrance of Jesus-1 Cor. 11:24. In verse 26, he said it is to "show the Lord's death till he come"-he is, therefore, not present, as transubstantiation teaches. In the exhortation of verse 28 the apostle refers to that bread and that cup. The doctrine of the actual body and blood is inconsistent with the exhortation of these verses. If Paul believed "that bread" was the real body of Jesus, why did he call it bread?

Fourth: The Doctrine Has No Foundation In Science Or Reason.

A laboratory test of the bread and the wine, before the priest officiates and after he officiates, will prove that they undergo no change from bread to flesh, or from juice to blood, and will therefore be a scientific demonstration that the doc-trine of transubstantiation is false.

It is unreasonable because it would enable a priest to manufacture God, and deposit Jesus on an altar, carry him in a box, put him in his vest pocket, or prescribe Deity in a capsule! It subjects the real body of the Lord to an acci-


dent, to be dropped, to fall and to break, to be lost, stolen, spilled, frozen or eaten by a church mouse!

The doctrine has no foundation in science, reason or scripture, and was manufactured out of the imagination of an Italian pope, whose main business is to sit in the Vatican thinking up some new "sacrament," unheard of in the Bible, to enact and bind on the consciences of his subjects.

Fifth: The Doctrine Violates The Scripture In With-holding The Cup.

This error is a consequent part of the one great error of transubstantiation.

In the year 1415 the Council of Constance decreed that only the bread, not the wine, should be administered to the people, and that the priest should drink the wine for the people. Later the council of Trent listed the reasons for "withholding the cup from the laity." Their reasons (?) turn the sublime into the ridiculous.

(1) It was to avoid an accident or an indignity in an assembly to the chalice, so only the priest handles it.

(2) The wine if not consumed would become vapid-so the priest consumes it!

(3) Many cannot bear to taste or smell wine-so because of one person in a thousand allergic to wine, the priest robs the church of the ordinance, deprives the audience of the element, and drinks it himself!

(4) It was considered the best means of eliminating the belief that the actual Christ, "whole and entire," was not contained in the elements-so to banish a "heresy" they mutilated the ordinances and established another human dogma.

The practice is plainly opposed to every scripture bearing on the subject of the observance of the Supper. Matthew says Jesus "gave it to them and said, Drink ye all of it."- Matt. 26:26. Mark says that Jesus "gave it to them, and they all drank of it"-Mk. 14:22-23. Paul says, "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup."

Why turn from the New Testament institution to a human sacrament made unholy by the invention of the pope of Rome? Why turn the Lord's supper from its memorial character, requiring faith in Jesus Christ, to a dogma of Rome, requiring faith in a Catholic priest?

There is no sacrament of Roman Catholicism more patronized and praised than the mass-low mass, high mass, solemn low and solemn high, pontifical mass, votive mass, conventual mass and masses for the dead-all of which are without scriptural precept or precedent, and therefore stand rejected as a relic of Rome.

The mass of Romanism changes the Lord's Supper from the memory of Christ to the "memory of the saints," and thus has the savior sacrificed in honor of a saint! There are numerous other weighty objections that can be urged against this abominable Roman relic, but we pass to another with a final pass at the mass-neither the office of the priest nor the altar of mass belongs to the church of Christ, and no scripture can be translated, twisted or distorted into the support of that doctrine.



Grouping these relics of Rome we will advance to another trio of sacraments.

First: The Sacrament Of Penance.

When one repents of sin by "penance" he receives ab-solution, but not altogether; the eternal punishment is re-mitted, but the temporal remains for which penitential works fasting, almsdeeds, and "other works of piety," anything


Rome's bishops demand, must be performed that temporal punishments may be averted-and that is Penance. By this sacrament divine justice must be satisfied in "penitential works" decreed by the Council of Trent. The priest deter-mines the temporal punishment and decides what is sufficient to satisfy God. It is a gross perversion of Bible teaching.

(1) It requires more than God has commanded. In 1 Jno. 2:1-2, we are assured that if "any man sin, we have an Advocate with the father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins." Propitiation means satis-faction-Jesus Christ is the satisfaction, not penance, for our sins.

(2) The Bible does not teach "two punishments"- eternal and temporal-one remitted by absolution and the other averted by penance. It is a deceptive doctrine and de-signed for the revenue penance brings to the Vatican treasury- for it is one of the greatest sources of income known to the courts of Catholicism. The doctrine divides the mercy of God, in having eternal punishment remitted, but temporal punishments retained. But God says, in Heb. 10:17, "their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more"-and verse 18 says, "where remission of. these is there is no more offering." But penance to escape the punishments and penal-ties of sins remitted eternally but retained temporally, is con-tinual offering, the sins are being remembered, and the doc-trine has God forgiving but not forgetting; but the inspired apostle says that he does both now, in the law of pardon be-longing to the new covenant, and "there is no more offering."

(3) The doctrine of penance is contrary to both covenants -old and new.

Nowhere did priest, prophet or apostle prescribe penance, in either testament, as the satisfaction for sin. Isaiah says, "I am he that blotteth out all thy transgression, and will not remember thy sins." (Isa. 43:25). The new testament says of Jesus, "But this man,after he had offered onesacrifice for


sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God." (Heb. 10: 12). The apostle Paul said, "There is therefore now no con-demnation to them which are in Christ Jesus . . . . . for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." (Rom. 8:1-2). Why impose penance where freedom from sin has removed the condem-nation? But again, John says, "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 Jno. 1:7). With such a divine assurance to those who have obtained the benefits of the blood through obedience to the gospel, what remains for penance? Where remission of sins is, there is "no more offering"-said the inspired apostle.

Second: What and Where Is Purgatory.

The propitiation, or satisfaction, which men are due God for sins, which cannot be made up during life, are made up in purgatory. When God is satisfied the Christian is released from purgatorial punishment, and is ready for heaven. All men, no matter how devout in life, must go to purgatory unless exempted by special dispensation-and the price is high! So says Rome.

The location of purgatory is in great doubt-whether in the world or under the earth; in the air or a part or precinct of or in the vicinity of hell. It seems an infallible pope should know! At least, it would have been as easy for the Catholic council of Florence that invented it, in 1438, to have located it, and satisfied curiosity-for it is a creature of their imagi-nation, anyway. It is a relic of ignorance and superstition, handed down from vague delusions possessed by some fa-natics as early as three centuries before Christ, and out of such pagan mythology the grotesque doctrine of purgatory was developed by the prelates of Rome, and bound by an oecumenical council on the consciences of Catholic victims the whole world over.


It scarcely need be said that the Bible teaching on the state of the dead flatly denies the doctrine of purgatory.

(1) The case of the Rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16- the great gulf, and no crossing hence or thence, reversing the Catholic idea of praying to the saints to get souls out of purgatory, echoes eternal-all the walls and arches of the hadean world reverberate the echo eternal, eternal, eternal!

(2) Solomon declared in Eccl. 9:10 that there is "no work, nor device in the grave whither thou goest -that is, no place of purgatorial purification for body and soul, by work and device and ingenuities and indulgences, after leaving this world.

(3) John declares in Rev. 22:11 that the righteous shall remain righteous and the filthy shall remain so-no purga-torial change-in the world to come.

(4) Paul declares that absent from this earthly state we shall be at once home with the Lord, 2 Cor. 4:1-6- without passing through purgatory, and if there is any such place enroute, or in transit, this would have been the time and place for Paul to have said so. Finally, Paul told Tim-othy-2 Tim. 4:8-that after departing from this world "henceforth, the crown of life"-henceforth means, from then on, nothing intervening. The Bible does not teach an inter-mediate state of purgatorial purification for Christians enroute to heaven.

Third: Indulgence For Sin.

The ordinance of indulgence is defined to be "a remission of the temporal punishment of our sins the church grants outside of penance." (Deharbe's Catechism) The obvious meaning of that definition is-pray and pay. Indulgences may be paid prospectively, before entering purgatory, to shorten the stay or lessen the misery. Or they may be paid vicariously that is one for another-retrospectively, this is after one has gone out of this world into the purgatorial realm.


(1) The ordinance is for the sole purpose of obtaining money-sums are levied for pardon, and sins are set at a price.

To obtain money to build cathedrals, indulgences for all who contribute are offered. To deliver souls from purgatory -pay to get them out-pay while you pray, and pray as long as you can pay!

These twin doctrines are a great source of wealth to Rome, for when approaching death a Catholic will give all to escape purgatory, and after his death the family will give all to ex-tricate him from purgatorial flames.

The story of Voltaire in France well-known to readers of history is an example of such cases. This mass traffic in indulgences is an enormous thing, and is nothing more than trading or bartering in souls.

(2) The doctrine is subversive and unscriptural.

The Hebrew apostle plainly declares that there is one -remission and "no more offering"-Heb. 10:17-18.

Paul says, Romans 5:9, that all who are "justified by his blood" are "saved from wrath." Purgatory is wrath, which the saved therefore cannot suffer.

Jesus said, Jno. 5:24, that the saved believer "shall not come into condemnation"-but purgatory would be right in the middle of it!

Paul said, 1 Tim. 2:4-5, that Christ gave himself "a ransom for all"-and that does not provide a levy of indul-gence as the ransom price.

(3) It is a theory of second chance.

Under the old covenant the Jews had the oracles of God (Rom. 3) and were thus connected with God by revealed law (Rom. 2: 1-11), while the Gentiles were subject to natural law (Rom. 2: 12-15), the things of which they were con-scious accusing or excusing them before God. Under the new


covenant Jews and Gentiles alike are subject to the gospel (Rom. 1:16), and will be judged "according to the gospel" (Rom. 2: 16). The new covenant is the law of the Holy Spirit, and is man's last chance and only hope of salvation. Jesus taught in Matt. 12, Mk. 3, and Lk. 12, that the sin against this law of the Holy Spirit in this world could have no forgiveness in the world to come, which shows that the present gospel dispensation is the dispensation of the Holy Spirit-the gospel age-and is final; it offers no forgiveness after death, therefore no purgatorial pardon. The future re-ward which is granted to all alike upon obedience to the con-ditions of the gospel in this life (Rom. 2: 5-11), with the con-sequent condemnation imposed upon the disobedient, is evi-dence that there is one time only, the same time to all alike -this present life-to secure remission of sins. The law of the Holy Spirit in this age is God's last offer and man's last chance, the rejection of which is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and which is called in Mk. 3, the "eternal" sin.

The Catholic doctrine of purgatory contradicts the law of remission of sins revealed by the Holy Spirit; it denies forgiveness through the blood of the new covenant "shed for the remission of sins"; it does "despite unto the Spirit of grace," and therefore blasphemes the Holy Spirit.

(4) The doctrine of vicarious baptism.

Belonging to the doctrine of purgatory is the Catholic idea of baptism for the dead, which asserts that a living per-son in this world may be baptized for (in the stead of) a dead person in the other world, who had not been baptized in this life. It is the doctrine of vicarious baptism. It goes along with their doctrine of vicarious faith, that the faith of a sponsor is accepted for the infant in the ceremony of baby baptism. But in the practice of baptizing for the dead, both faith and baptism are vicarious acts on the part of the living for the dead.


There is one passage which is interpreted by Roman pre-lates to mean vicarious baptism-1 Cor. 15: 29: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" First of all, there is no evidence that the baptism of this pas-sage refers to baptism with water. The context indicates the opposite, rather showing a figurative use of the term baptism as an immersion in sufferings. The following verses refer to the persecutions and sufferings which placed early Chris-tians in such constant danger of death as to be a daily death- "I die daily," and "why stand we in jeopardy every hour?" (verse 30) And, why should he have "fought with beasts at Ephesus," the mob who sought to kill him (verse 31); and, "what advantage" was all the suffering, if there is no resurrec-tion of the dead. The baptism of the Corinthian reference is clearly immersion in the sufferings through which they were passing for believing and attesting the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and consequently for the resurrection of the dead.

In the expression "baptized for the dead," the word "for" is not the Greek preposition eis, it is huper. It is the same preposition used in the following passages:

Phil. 1:29: "For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake."

Acts 9:16: "For I will show him how many things he must suffer for my name's sake."

Col. 1:24: "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you."

1 Pet. 4:1: "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us."

The Greek expression "the dead" was considered as the resurrection of the dead. The baptism for the dead, there-fore, was being immersed in their sufferings, trials and martyr-dom for testifying to the resurrection of Christ, and believing


in the resurrection of the dead. Paul and other faithful Christians were baptized (in sufferings) for the resurrection of the dead.

Jesus said to the disciples: "Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized." (Mk. 10: 38-39) Here Jesus informed his disciples that they should drink of the cup of suffering, and be baptized with suffering: "Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the bap-tism that I am baptized with." (Matt. 20:23). When were the disciples baptized with such a baptism? When they en-dured the sufferings of their apostolic ministry. This bap-tism of suffering to which Jesus referred is the same baptism for the dead to which Paul referred. Paraphrasing Paul's language, he said: What shall they do who suffer as Jesus suffered, who like Jesus are baptized in sufferings, if there is no resurrection; what is their gain? what is their inducement? what is the advantage?

As on everything else, the Roman Catholic Church is arbitrary in the interpretation of this passage to mean vicar-ious baptism, and by their forced interpretation, they destroy the purpose of New Testament baptism.

Friends, you should take the Bible instead of the Cate-chism, put your trust in Christ in death, instead of a Catholic priest, be happy in the hope of glory in God's presence instead of tormented by wafers, candles, and beads, and leaving this world go in peace through him who has conquered death and the grave, and who opened to us the gates of heaven-for "blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life and enter by the gates into the city." Such faith and hope banish all fear of death and the


grave as we contemplate life and bliss in the eternal home of the soul.



Rome has many objects of veneration. One kind is due relics and images. Another kind is due saints and angels. Another kind is due Mary and another is due Deity. But the Bible teaches one kind of worship and one object of worship.

First: The Worship Of Images Is Sinful.

(1) Moses warned against graven images and stony effigies-and the first commandment said, "No other god- neither any likeness of God."

(2) Hezekiah removed and broke all the images the people had made for worship and veneration-2 Chron. 14:5-and Moses condemned all similitude of figures-Deut. 4:16-all of which are the very essence of Roman Catholic worship.

(3) Jesus said that man shall "worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve"-but Rome has invented many objects of worship and veneration.

(4) Paul condemned the Gentile world for creature wor-ship in Rom. 1:23-25, and the Athenians for image worship, in Acts 17:24-29.

(5) The angel of Rev. 22:8-9 forbade John to worship him, an angel-but said: "See thou do it not, worship God." That should be enough-but what difference does it make to a Catholic priest or the pope, who exalts himself above God! Second: The Worship Of Mary Is Reproved.

(1) Jesus himself taught against the veneration of Mary in Matt. 12:47-49 and made equal with Mary "whosoever shall do the will of my Father."

(2) Again, in Luke 11:27, when a certain woman said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bare thee," Jesus said, "Yea


rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it."

These passages seem to be in direct anticipation of the veneration of Mary-otherwise no understanding of why the Lord should utter such language in reference to Mary, his mother.

Third: Praying Through Saints Is Contrary To All New Testament Teaching On Saints.

(1) The plain statements of Phil. 1:1, 1 Cor. 1, 2 Cor. 1, Rom. 1, and Jude 3, all show that saints were living Christians in the New Testament churches, and became such by obedi-ence to the gospel, and not by being canonized after death.

(2) In prayer all christians have access to God through Christ-Eph. 2:16-without the intermediary of a patron or matron saint. Other passages declare that there is "no other name"; and "no man cometh unto the Father but by me;" and he saves "to the uttermost" all that come to God "by him"; and "There is one mediator between God, himself man, Christ Jesus the righteous, who gave himself a ransom for all."

All of these things reveal the utter disregard of Roman Catholics for the word of God.

We have come to the closing point of this address, where we will drive down a peg until tomorrow night.



In this series we have put constant stress on three things:

(1) The Bible and the Bible alone is the Christian's rule of faith and practice.

(2) Canon law, the catechism and tradition are Roman Catholic rules of faith and practice.

(3) Tradition has more weight with Catholics than the Bible.


(4) The pope of Rome proscribes the Bible and restricts its circulation.

Jesus said: "Search the scriptures," but Catholic popes have forbidden and anathematized it.

Jesus said: "The words that I speak unto you shall judge you in the last day"-but Catholics say we are judged by popes, councils and bishops.

Paul said, "The scriptures made thee wise unto salvation" -the pope declared the reading of the scriptures to be an injury to the laity.

Paul said, "If any man or angel from heaven preach any other gospel let him be accursed"-but the pontiffs of Rome have made void the gospel by canons, syllabuses and traditions, subverting the truth by the decrees of councils, encompassing land and sea to make proselytes ten-fold more the children of apostasy. They have killed noble men and persecuted millions of innocent people, and by a multitude of iniquities they have crucified afresh the Lord of glory. To honest Catholics, I plead: "Come out of her, that ye be not partaker of her sins, and receive not her plagues, for her sins have reached to heaven and God hath remembered her iniquities." I urge you, my friends, that you now cast aside all human tradition, acknowledge no head of the church except Jesus Christ, acknowledge no authority other than his word, bow your head to no priest or prelate, but yield your heart in submission to him at whose name every knee shall bow and whose lordship every tongue shall confess.



Let me say that I appreciate all the encouraging remarks that are being made both publicly and privately and without further preliminaries, I want to call your attention to the reading of a few verses from the first chapter of Ephesians, beginning with the twentieth verse: "Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all princi-pality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."

That introduces Paul's summary of the New Testament church, in the book of Ephesians, which I shall discuss, according to announcement, under the subject, "The Spiritual and Organic Unity of the New Testament Church-or, An Apostolic Syllabus." The reason I have referred to the book of Ephesians as "An Apostolic Syllabus" of the New Testament church, is in order to contrast a divine document of an inspired apostle with human decrees of Roman popes, Vatican councils and Protestant creeds.

The syllabus of Pius IX, issued in 1864, has been examined and analyzed. That syllabus of the Roman church, through Pius IX, inveighs against the powers of the civil state, and extols the rights of the Roman church. There are some things about that syllabus that curdle the blood of all who are de-voted to the principles of civil and religious freedom. The syllabus of the Roman pontiff declares that the state has no right to allow freedom of religion; that the state has no right to permit free expression of opinion; that the state has no right to the direction of public schools; that the state has no


right to license marriage except as administered as a sacrament of the Roman Catholic church, under the forms of the Council of Trent; and that the state has no right to exist separate from the Roman church. In defining the rights of the Roman church, the syllabus states that the church, meaning the Roman Catholic church, has the right to require the state not to allow religious freedom; that the church has the right to require the state not to exercise the,direction of the public school system; that the church has the right to require the state not to license marriages except under the form of the Council of Trent, and according to the sacrament of the Roman Catholic church; that the church has the right to require the state to make null and void such marriages; that the church has the right to re-quire the state to make the Roman Catholic religion the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of any other; and that the church has the right to employ force to execute these rights.

These are just some of the high lights in that syllabus. But out of these abuses and abominations of Rome, came orthodox protestant denominationalism, whose creeds are le-gion. They represent also human authority and organization -they, too, are all human churches.

Now we hold in contrast with the syllabus and the prot-estant creeds, a divine, apostolic syllabus on the real New Testament church.

I am going through the book of Ephesians, chapter by chapter, because it sums up Paul's argument on the church. Every principle taught in the New Testament concerning the church of our Lord Jesus Christ is embodied in the Ephesian letter. It is in a very special sense, the "church epistle" of the New Testament. We begin with the first chapter.



1. The apostle begins by saying that certain things were accomplished in Christ when God raised him from the dead.


He made him to sit at his own right hand in heavenly places; above all principality and power, might and dominion; and every name that is named; he put all things in subjection under his feet, "and gave him to be head over all things to the church which is his body."

The position that Jesus Christ occupies at the right hand of God is the first point of emphasis: the position of Christ as the head of the church. That position is above all prin-cipality and power. Powers have to do with things outward and visible; principalities have to do with things inward, or invisible. It means Jesus Christ has a position at the right hand of God above all things visible and invisible. Not only that, his position is above all dominion; his dominion extends "from sea to sea," with all authority in heaven and in earth, exercised in rules of government-the New Testament. More-over, he has a name above every name, not only in this world but also in that which is to come-that is, anything that can be named or any name that can be given to it-Jesus Christ has a name above it, not only in the present, but also in the future state.

Furthermore, "he hath put all things in subjection under his feet." Note, "all things" and "hath put"-past tense- "hath put all things in subjection under his feet." In Heb. 2:14, Paul declares: "Forasmuch then as the children are par-takers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their life-time subject to bondage." Paul, in Ephesians, said, "hath put all things in subjection under his feet." Paul, in Hebrews, said, "him that had the power." Both verbs, in the two verses, are in the past tense: "hath" and "had." He hath put all things in sub-jection under his feet-he destroyed (brought to nought) him that had the power. So the devil had the power but has it no more. Christ has all power, the devil has none. Anyone who serves Satan is a willing servant-he has no more power over them.

When General McArthur's rangers swooped down upon the concentration camp in the Philippines, and released the prisoners held in those prison camps, they "captured the captivity," and delivered the captives. When, in Ephesians four, Paul said that Jesus Christ "led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men," when he ascended on high, it is a fine illustration of the point. Jesus captured the captivity of Satan, and set the captives free.

When captivity is captured, it means those held in cap-tivity are released. Satan has no power over any man, because Jesus Christ captured the captivity, brought to nought him that had the power, and delivered all who were in the bondage of sin and death.

The devil walks about "as a roaring lion," we are told, but the same verse says "whom resist steadfast in the faith." He can be resisted, showing that his power is destroyed. All who serve Satan are willing servants. It was necessary for Jesus Christ thus to conquer the power of Satan, destroy him and bring him to nought, in order to become the head of the church.

2. The next statement says: "And gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body." Here is Paul's emphasis on the importance and pre-eminence of the church-"head over all things to the church." The pre-eminence of the church is emphasized in the position of Christ as the head of it, and is clearly indicated in the phrase "the head over all things to the church." I have been in circulation a "few" years; I have seen a good many preachers of different colors and kinds. Of all the preachers I have seen, I have never seen or heard a preacher of any brand who ever said that "the head" means more than one head. But I have found scads of preachers who stoutly contend that "the church" means more than one church-"join the church of your choice."


And recently I saw a codicil added to that, which read: "Join the church of your church, and be baptized as you please"! I was driving through a mountain town of Tennessee, and I saw a large card with the standing figure of the preacher. A union meeting was being held in the town. I was not so much impressed with the picture on the card. I had seen pictures before, of a better looking preacher (mine own, for instance), but the slogan of that meeting, in big letters, read: "JOIN THE CHURCH OF YOUR CHOICE AND BE BAPTIZED AS YOU PLEASE"-as though God has neither church nor choice, and never said a word on the subject of baptism. That was a "declaration of independence"-against the revealed will of God. And that is the attitude of the public today. "Join the church of your choice, be baptized as you please"-and do as you please about everything else in religion-that is the senti-ment of the times. But, if "the head" means one head, why does not "the church" mean one church? He was given to be "the" head over all things to "the" church. If "the" head means one head, I submit that "the" church means one church. One cannot get any more churches out of that passage than he can get heads out of that passage. That is the oneness of the church spiritually, and we shall show that the oneness is organic, presently.

3. But note further that the text says, "gave him to be the head over all things to the church." It is one thing to be the head of the church, and still another thing to be head over all things to the church. Christ is the head of the church, be-cause it belongs to him. He purchased it with his blood. It is his institution. But he is the head over all thing to it in the sense that he governs, or rules it. There can be nothing connected with the church that does not descend from the authority of Jesus Christ the head of it. That is a fundamental proposition. "Head over all things to the church." A man is the head of his family because his wife and children belong to him. But he is not the head over all things to his family unless he governs it, controls it, and rules it. If he is hen-pecked, if he is a Mr. Casper Milquetoast, the timid soul; or one of these modern, "yes, darling" husbands, he is not the head over all things to his family. So as the man is the head over all things to his family if he rules, governs, and controls it; Christ is the head over all things to the church, because his authority is absolute and supreme. Nothing can be added to the church that does not come from his authority; nothing can be taken out of it, which his authority has put in it. That gets rid of the idea that so many people have that they can have in the church anything that pleases them. They think if it pleases them it pleases God. The way some people arrive at the answer to the question as to what pleases God is to de-termine what pleases themselves.

I was holding a meeting in this state. The husband in the home had a birthday during my meeting, and his wife bought him a birthday present. Guess what? She bought him lace curtains for all the windows in the house downstairs and upstairs. Sisters, it gives you an idea: if your husband has a birthday buy him something that you want! That is the way a lot of people worship God.

In this day, when people come to worship God, instead of doing what God says, they do something they want to do, something that pleases the person, something that pleases the man. That is not worshipping God. The only way that one can worship God is to do what God says. No act of worship ascends to the throne of God that does not have upon it the stamp of the authority and approval of the Son of God. "He is the head over all things to the church, which is his body."

4. The next statement says: "The fulness of him that filleth all things in all." There are two points of emphasis there: first, "He is the head over all things to the church which is his body;" second, "the fulness of him that filleth all things in all." There we have in bold contrast, the dif-ference between thechurch and denominationalism. I want


to illustrate what I mean by that. The church is the body of Christ. That means, of course, his spiritual body. A defi-nition which I think to be a good one, puts it in these words: "The church is that spiritual realm over which Jesus Christ rules as head, composed of all the saved, of all who have been born again." Now that is a good definition of the church as an organism, as it is used in the aggregate. In the aggregate the church is composed of all the saved on earth. When Jesus said, "Upon this rock I will build my church-and I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven," that meant the whole church, the saved everywhere, the saved in the aggregate. Every person who obeys the gospel, as the Ethiopian officer did by the side of the road, belongs to the church in that sense; that is, the church in the whole, or universal sense. Let me draw a circle on the board, if I can draw one-just imagine that it is a circle. Let that circle represent the church, the whole church. Christ said, "Upon this rock I will build my church." That does not indicate the local feature, but the whole church. Every saved person on the earth is in the church in that sense, as in Acts 2:47, "the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." Every "should be saved" person is added to the church. The same thing that saves a man adds him to the church. The adding process is the saving process.

Well, that is the church in the aggregate, the whole church. But God not only ordained that people obey the gospel and be saved; God ordained also that Christians band themselves together for the purpose of work and worship. That brings to view the local church, the church in a certain locality-the congregation. That means all the saved within the geographical term of limitation. When Paul says, "the church of God at Corinth,' he meant all the saved at Corinth, all who had obeyed the gospel, all within the term of limitation there used. When the record tells us that "the church is the body of Christ," it represents the church as an organism, Christ the head, and every saved person on earth a member.


But in the local sense, the church is the body of Christ," it represents the church as an organism, Christ the head, and every saved person on earth a member. But in the local sense, the church is an organization with elders, deacons and mem-bers. In either sense it includes all the saved within the use of the word.

Now, what is a denomination? In order that you might see it in contrast, what is a denomination? The following acceptable definition has been given: "A denomination is a religious organization larger than any local church, but smaller than the whole church." Let us analyze that for a moment. A denomination is smaller than the whole church. Why? Because no denomination even claims to have all Christians in it. I am speaking of the denominational viewpoint. All denominationalists say that there are Christians in all other denominations-saved people in all denominations. Then a denomination is smaller than the whole church. The whole church is made up of all the saved in the aggregate. Since no denomination claims to have all the saved in it, by its own admission a denomination is smaller than the whole church. But the denomination is larger than the local church. Why? Simply because it takes all the churches of one faith and order to make up any one particular denomination. Now, help me preach-you just think of the one you belong to; if it is Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Baptist, or what- that particular denomination is made up of all the churches of that particular faith and order. The Methodist church is made up of all the Methodist churches, of one faith and order, tied into the General Conference. The Presbyterian denomination is made up of all Presbyterian churches of one faith and order, tied into the General Assembly, or the Synod. The Roman Catholic denomination is made up of all Catholic churches the world over, tied into the Vatican head. So, a denomination is made up of all the local churches of that faith and order. Then a denomination is larger than the local church, but smaller than the whole church. But the


New Testament uses the word "church" only in the aggregate sense, and the local sense; the general sense, and the limited sense. The denomination is too small to be the church in the whole sense, and is too large to be the church in the local sense; it is therefore not the church in any sense. It is both too small and too large to be the church-too large to be the local church, too small to be the whole church, both too large and too small to be scriptural. There is no scriptural, Bible, New Testament idea of a denomination. The church does not exist in denominationalism. Denominationalism does not exist in the church. Denominations are human fraternities, alien institutions.

Advancing we read again: "He is the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." All right-let me comment on the word "fulness" -the fulness of him that filleth all in all. Is it necessary to belong to the church to be saved? I hear people say, "the church is unessential, nonessential; you do not have to belong to the church to be saved." Well, let us see just a moment. I saw an illustration similar to this one time: a large circle representing Christ, and a smaller circle inside representing the church. The big circle was Christ, and the small inner circle was the church. The church is within Christ. Now that looks good. It was accommodating, at least, to put the church on the inside of Christ. But what does it do to Paul's statement? Paul says that "the church is the fulness of Christ." I ask you, friends, is that inner circle the fulness of the outer circle? The inner circle is not the fulness of the outer circle, but the church is the fulness of Christ. Then you see, the illustration is wrong. Whoever manufactured that made a slip. It contradicts Paul's definition of the church. According to that illustration, a person can get into Christ and not be in the church. He could get into Christ, stay in Christ, and have as much circulating room between the perimeters of the two circles as a tadpole would have in the Gulf of Mexico, and never get into the church at all!


Paul says, "Christ is the fulness of God." Can a person get into God and stay out of Christ? Can a person accept God and reject Christ? Can a person be in God and not be in Christ? Inasmuch as the Bible says "Christ is the fulness of God," and God and Christ are one, no man can be in one and out of the other. You cannot accept one and reject the other. You cannot get into one and stay out of the other.

On the same principle, Christ being the fulness of God, you cannot come to God and ignore Christ. Take, for in-stance, the orthodox Jew, who believes in God, but does not believe in Christ. Can a Jew be in God and out of Christ? I do not believe that any man can come to God and ignore Christ, his fulness. And for that same reason no man can come to Christ and ignore the church, his fulness. If one comes to God through Christ his fulness, then one comes to Christ through the church, his fulness. The parallel stands absolutely so. In Godwin Christ; in Christ, in the church.

When the apostle says, "the churches of God in Christ," and "the churches of Christ in God," it shows that they are one and the same thing-"The churches of Judea in Christ," and "the church of the Thessalonians in God." It works both ways: to be in God is to be in Christ; to be in Christ is to be in God; but to be in the church is to be in Christ; to be in Christ is to be in the church. The church is the fulness of Christ. Do not ever again be guilty of saying that the church is unessential, and nonessential. According to Paul, that is not true. So much for this first chapter on this apostolic syllabus on the church.



I call your attention now to references in the second chapter-Eph. 2:11-22.

1. The apostle reminds the Gentiles that they were aliens out of the church; that being aliens they were strangers from


the promises and the commonwealth of Israel. Once the nation of Israel was the old commonwealth, now church of Christ is the new commonwealth. Out of the church, they were aliens and strangers, having no hope and without God in the world. "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby."

Outside of the church, Paul says, "Aliens." We all know what an alien is. That is a common word now. An alien is not a citizen. Aliens and strangers without God, without Christ, without hope-in the world, not in Christ, not in the church. Out of the church an alien, a stranger, no hope, without God, without Christ. But, "Ye are made nigh."

How? Verse 16 says: "reconciled in one body." All right, put reconciliation on the inside. Saved out of the church? If so, saved without reconciliation. "Reconciled in," in what? In the one body. Paul had just said that Christ is the head of the church, which is his body. Now he says these aliens are reconciled in it. But it is said, that means the Jew and the Gentile are reconciled to each other. No, it says, "reconciled unto God in one body." Reconciled "unto God" in one body. If one is saved out of the church, he is saved without reconcilia-tion unto God. The thing that reconciles one unto God puts him into the one body, the church.

2. Now verse 19: "Therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners." He drops the word "alien," and adopts the word "strangers." Therefore, no more strangers, foreigners, and aliens. Why? Because you are reconciled and in the one body. "Therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but are fellow-citizens." Fellow-citizens in this one body. Out of the church, an alien; out of the church, a stranger; out of the church, not reconciled. In the church, reconciled; in the church a citizen. Saved out of the church-saved without being a citizen. Saved out of the church-saved as an alien. Saved out of the church-saved as a stranger. Saved out of the church-saved without reconciliation. Saved out of the church-saved without the promises, saved without God, saved without Christ, saved without hope. What do you say about it now, friends? It is not I who is speaking. This is the New Testament apostolic syllabus on the church. God puts salvation in the church.

1. Continue: No longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens "with the saints." Out of the church, not a saint. The idea of a saint varies. Roman Catholics think that a person must be dead to be canonized as a saint. There are no living saints in the Catholic Church. Their saints have to be dead so long, usually dead long enough for all of their defects to be forgotten; dead long enough for every-body else to be dead who ever knew anything about their defects, then they canonize them and make saints out of them. But the New Testament idea of a saint is simply one who has obeyed the gospel and has remission of sins, having been set apart by obedience to the gospel. That is the meaning of the word "saint," or "sanctified"-set apart unto the service of God. All who obey the gospel become saints by so doing. So, in the church, saints; out of the church, not saints.

2. But again-with the saints, and "of the household of God." God's household is God's family; but the church is the household, and if you are out of the house of God- out of the family. Is it necessary to be a child of God to be saved? Then it is necessary to be in the house, the family of God. Do not ever again say it is not necessary to belong to the church; that the church is nonessential, unessential, un-important. Some people say, "I just don't believe in church salvation." Well, I believe in Christ salvation, and that sal-vation is in the church, his body. It is not the church that saves, the church is the saved. That is the point. Because a


man is saved that does not mean he is the saviour; and because the church is the saved does not mean the church is the saviour. To believe that I am saved, does not mean that I have to believe that I save myself. Very well, to believe that the church is the saved, does that mean that I must believe that the church saves me? Certainly not. Christ saves me, but he saves me in the church. The church is the saved-that is the idea.

5. Then he says, "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone." We are built on the foundation. What foundation? The foundation of the apostles and prophets. That does not mean the apostles and the prophets are the foundation. No. It means they laid it. This audi-torium is a magnificent building. Some man was the archi-tect. He laid the foundation. It is that man's foundation, but the man is not the foundation. There is a difference between the foundation of a man and the man being the foundation. The reference to the foundation of the apostles and prophets does not mean that the apostles and prophets are the foundation. It means the foundation laid by them. So states the apostle Paul in the Corinthian letter, chapter three: "I as a wise master builder hath laid the foundation and another buildeth thereon, but take heed how ye build upon it; other foundation can no man lay than that which hath been laid, which is Jesus Christ." Hence-not Peter. It would have been a fine place to say, "which is Simon Peter." If that were true, the pope might claim to be the foundation of the church. Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 3 is a divine interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Christ said, "Upon this rock I will build my church." If the church is built upon the rock, then whatever that rock is, that is the foundation, and the church is built upon it. But Paul says, "Other founda-tion can no man lay save that which hath been laid which is Jesus Christ." The church is built upon the rock; but the thing upon which the church is built is the foundation, so the rock is the foundation. But Christ is the foundation; therefore Christ is the rock. So the rock is not Peter. The foundation of the church is Christ. It was called the founda-tion of the apostles and prophets because they laid that founda-tion by preaching Christ.

One man argued with me that the church is built on the prophets, and David was a prophet, so the church is built on David, and David used instrumental music in the worship, so that puts instrumental music in the foundation of the church! He had two erroneous ideas. He had the idea that the prophets mentioned there were the Old Testament prophets, and then he had the idea that the prophets were the founda-tion. Both of his ideas were wrong. The reference is to New Testament prophets, not the Old Testament prophets. The apostle said in Ephesians 3, "NOW revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets." How many Old Testament prophets were living at the time Paul wrote the Ephesian letter? Malachi was the last Old Testament prophet, and he had been dead four hundred years. The prophets referred to were living at the same time the apostles were living. They were New Testament prophets. But the prophets are not the founda-tion, and the apostles are not the foundation-they laid it by preaching Christ and all who obeyed Christ were on it.

A third error in that idea is in assuming that if David was a part of the foundation of the church it would bring into the church everything David practiced. That would go too far. David burned incense in the worship, so that would put incense in the foundation of the church-good Catholic doctrine. David kept the old seventh day sabbath, so that would put sabbath keeping in the foundation of the church-good Adventist doctrine. David had eight wives and took more, that would put polygamy in the foundation of the church-good Mormon doctrine. You can see what is wrong with that. When it says the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, it did not mean the Old Testament prophets, in the first place; it did not


mean that the prophets were the foundation, in the second place; and if it meant that, it still would not bind Jewish worship on the church, in the third place.

Notice it says: "apostles and prophets." "A" and "P."- I do not mean to advertise a grocery store-I am just talking about apostles and prophets! It does not say prophets and apostles-but apostles first, then prophets-New Testament prophets. The apostles and prophets of the New Testament preached Christ. By hearing, believing, and obeying what the apostles and prophets preached, the Corinthians got on the foundation. Now, if you have not obeyed the gospel of Christ you are off the foundation. If you are on the foundation, you are in the building; but the building is the church, and the church is built on the foundation. So if you are out of the church, you are out of the foundation; and if you are out of the foundation, you are out of Christ. Do not ever say again that it is not necessary to belong to the church.

6. Then the apostle says, "Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone." You know what a cornerstone does for a building? It holds the walls together, does it not? When the Jew and the Gentile obeyed the gospel they became members of the same institution. God would not have a Jew church and a Gentile church. No, the church of Christ is one body. When the Jew obeyed the gospel he came into the one body. When the Gentile obeyed the gospel he came into the one body, and Christ is the cornerstone that holds the walls to-gether. "He made of the two one new man." He is the foundation because it is built on him. He is the head of it because it exists by his divine authority. He is the corner-stone of it because he holds together in one body both Jew and Gentile. Well, there is not any one else to be in it- only Jews and Gentiles. If you are not a Jew, you are a Gentile and if you are not a Gentile, you are a Jew, in the Bible use of the term. Since a Gentile must be in the church and a Jew must be in the church, and they must be in the same church, where does anyone get the idea that anybody can be saved out of the church? A Gentile must obey the gospel to be saved and that puts him into a church. "And he made both one." There is the unity of the church, and there is the essentiality of the church, the importance and the pre-eminence of the church.

1. Then the apostle says, "In whom each several building fitly framed together groweth into a holy temple in the Lord." Verse 20. There the church is represented as a temple. That is the worship idea. You must be in the temple to worship. The pagan idea of the temple was a dwelling place for gods. So Paul said, "know ye not that ye are the temple of the living God." The church is not a temple of idols, but the temple of God. It is not a building of material architecture, but of people, who have obeyed the gospel-they make up the church-God's temple. In order to worship God one must be in the temple. No one can worship God outside his temple. If you are out of the church then you are out of the temple, and cannot render worship unto God. If it is necessary to render worship unto God to be saved, it is neces-sary to be in the church, the temple of God, to be saved.

2. The next verse-verse 22-tells us that it is "the habi-tation of God in the Spirit." If one is in God and God is in him, then he is in the church, because the church is the habitation of God. That means, where God dwells. If one is out of the church, God does not dwell in him, and he does not dwell in God. Necessary to belong to the church to be saved? Friends, what do you think about it in the light of what Paul says? And I am simply emphasizing Paul's language, not my own.



We pass into the third chapter, in which are two refer-ences that I want to emphasize.

1. Verse 6 tells us what was revealed unto the apostles and prophets-"that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and


of the same body." The Jews thought they alone were God's people. In the Old Testament the Jews, fleshly, national Israel, were the heirs. But in the New Testament, spiritual Israel, the church, are the heirs. When a Jew obeys the gospel he abandons his nationality. Every Jew who becomes a Christian becomes God's Gentile. Every Gentile who be-comes a Christian becomes God's Jew. The distinction is lost. In Christ there is no distinction. The Gentile is an heir with the Jew in "the same body." In the old Testament the Jew was the heir. In the new Testament the Gentile is a fellow-heir with the Jew. But where? "Of the same body." Yes, the "same" body; not different bodies-same body, same church; one body, one church.

So if one is an heir of God he is in the church. If he is out of the church he is not a citizen. If he is out of the church he is not an heir of God. Out of the church an alien and a stranger, out of the church not a citizen, out of the church not an heir-yet people talk of the church as being unimportant, unessential, and "it does not make any dif-ference whether you belong to the church, or not." Friends, do not ever say it again. It is nothing short of religious pro-fanity.

1. But the same verse says, "and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus." So one who is out of the church is not an heir, and is not a partaker of the promise in Christ. That puts partaking of the promise in Christ in the church. Heir-ship in the church; citizenship in the church; reconciliation in the church; and worship in the church; and partaking of the promises in the church-yet the church is nonessential!

2. In verse 10, the apostle tells us that this church is a part of that divine plan which God had in mind from the beginning: "According to the eternal purpose of God." It is not a new thing. The church is but the development and culmination of that divine plan of the ages conceived in the mind of God before the world began. God had the church

in mind from the beginning. The last verse of Ephesians three says, "To him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all the ages, world without end." Since the church was in God's mind from the beginning, and the church will be here as long as the world stands, "world with-out end," there is simply no place for the 1000 years interlude that we hear so much about, nor the postponement program either, that Christ intended to start the kingdom but the Jews kept him from it, so he gave us the church in its place, went back to heaven, and when he comes again the church will be terminated and the kingdom will be inaugurated. Now all of that is a figment of the imagination. Paul says in Eph. 3: 10-21 that the church was in God's mind from the beginning, and it will be the church, "world without end." As the earth shall stand, it will be God's church, God's one and only divine institution, in which men may do the will of God and be saved. The church is not merely a part of the plan and purpose of God-the church is the plan. To be saved out of the church would amount to being saved without God's plan of salvation.



In Ephesians 4, we read: "There is one body, one God, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one spirit, and one hope." I would like to put the word "ONE" on the board and show you how it applies to the unity of the Spirit. Paul says, "Keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Then he lists the seven things in which that unity consists. One God, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body, one spirit, and one hope.

1. One God-that is unity, or oneness, in worship.

2. One Lord-that means one authority, no human man-made creed.

3. One faith-that means one gospel, one plan of salva-tion.


1. One baptism-that means one action, one practice. People talk about "modes" of baptism. There must be a differ-ence between a thing and the mode of a thing. We hear that sprinkling, pouring and immersion are modes of baptism. If sprinkling, pouring, and immersion are modes of the thing, what is the thing? What is it? Give me the thing and you can have the mode. I want "it." If sprinkling is a mode of it, then sprinkling is not it. If pouring is a mode of it, then pouring would not be it-just a mode of it. If immersion is a mode of it, then immersion is not it. I do not believe that immersion is a mode of baptism. I believe that immersion is baptism. Baptism, being a noun, stands for one thing. The verb "baptize," being a verb of action, denotes one action. If pouring is baptism, sprinkling is not. If sprinkling is baptism pouring is not. If either sprinkling or pouring is baptism, immersion is not. If immersion is baptism neither sprinkling nor pouring is, because baptism is one thing. Now do some eliminating, and I think you will eliminate the two that are not baptism and stick to the one that is.

2. One body-that means one church. That is organic unity-one body, one organization, one in kind, one church.

3. One spirit-means one mind, one attitude, the mind or disposition of Christ.

4. One hope-that means one desire, one expectation of heaven!

Do you say that baptism is nonessential? I have had the experience of handing the chalk to various denominational preachers, asking them to check these things on the board. Now let us start: "One God." Essential or nonessential? "One Lord." Essential or nonessential? "One Faith." Essential or nonessential? "One Baptism." Essential or nonessential? "One Body." Essential or nonessential? "One Spirit." Es-sential or nonessential? "One Hope." Essential or non-essential? I have never had anybody to check out the non-essential. They will not check it. No, the man who checks out "one baptism" as a nonessential, knows some one else could check out "one faith" on the same principle exactly. The unity of the Spirit requires all seven. Take one out, you have no unity of the Spirit. That applies to the church. Do you say the church is nonessential? All right, check it- check it, would you? Would you put the pointer on the nonessential? There is not a preacher in Houston who will put the pointer on it, or a check mark by it.



We come now to the fifth chapter, the last. Let us note each statement deliberately.

1. "As the husband is the head of the wife, Christ is also the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body."

That is a strong statement. "And he is the saviour of the body." That is, the body is the saved. If a person is saved out of the body then there could not be any point at all; if the man out of the church has the same saviour and the same salvation that the man in the church has, he is the one who has the advantage. .If we can have the same saviour and same salvation out of the church, why the extra bother of belonging to it? Why go the long way around? Take the short cut. When Paul says, "He is the saviour of the body," that means the body is the saved. The church is the body, therefore, the church is the saved. Nobody is saved out of the church.

Someone inquires, "What about babies?" Are infants saved or lost? They are neither saved nor lost. I learned that a long time ago. There are two words: the word "safe" and the word "saved." I am not saying there are no persons "safe" out of the church. I think some people are safe out of the church. Infants and idiots are. You can classify yourself-it will save me the trouble and the embarrassment! Anyhow, there are some who are safe out of the church, but


none saved out of the church. The term "saved" means "to deliver from danger." The term "safe" means, "not liable to danger." Infants are not lost. You cannot save persons who are not lost. Take for instance, a man who falls into the river, and you throw the rope or send the boat. He is the man that you save. Here is a fellow on the bank who has not fallen into the river. You would not talk of saving him. You save the one that is in danger.

Again people say to me, "Do you mean to tell me that a man is lost just because he does not obey the gospel?" No, he is lost already. He must obey the gospel to be saved. Take the fellow in the river, drowning: you throw the rope or send the boat, would he say: "Do you think I am drown-ing just because I do not get into that boat? Do you think I am drowning just because I do not take hold of the rope?" No, he is drowning already, and he must get into that boat, or take hold of that rope, to be rescued or saved. Anybody ought to see the distinction. The man is not drowning be-cause he does not get into the boat. He is drowning because he is in the water. All right, a man is not lost just because he is not baptized. He is lost already, because he is in sin. That is the reason he is lost. Just as the boat is the means of rescue, and one must get into it, the gospel is the means of salvation; and it must be obeyed to rescue man from his lost state, to save him from sin. That is why our saviour said, "Go preach the gospel . . . . he that believeth (the gospel) and is baptized shall be saved."

2. "Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word."

I have always been under the impression that the thing purchased must be of equal value with the purchase price, or else somebody has had a bad deal. If the thing purchased is of equal value with the purchase price, then when the record says that Jesus Christ gave himself for the church, that means that the church, the purchased thing, is equal in value with Jesus Christ, the purchase price. The thing purchased being equal in value with the purchase price, the church is equal in value with the price paid for it. That price was the one and only Son of heaven, Jesus Christ the Son of God. If the church is unessential, so is Christ. But he purchased the church "with his own blood"-Acts 20:28. The blood is the purchase, price; the church is the purchased thing. The thing purchased is equal in value with the purchased price, therefore the church is equal in value to the blood of Christ. If you are saved without the church, you are saved without the blood. If saved out of the church, saved out of the blood; saved out of the church, saved out of Christ.

Furthermore, if one is saved out of the church he is saved without the cleansing and the sanctification of this verse. The Ephesians were cleansed and sanctified "with the washing of water by the word." The "washing of water" refers to bap-tism, and "by the word" simply means in obedience to the word. The word of God cleanses the one who obeys it. Cleansing and sanctification are effects of the word of God in the heart. Jesus said to the disciples, "Ye are clean because of the word that I have spoken unto you" (Jno. 15:3), and again, "that they also might be sanctified through the truth" (Jno. 17:19). Sanctification and cleansing are so connected with the-"washing of water" in baptism as to be result of it. There is no cleansing without the washing; there is no washing without the water; there is no sanctification without both; there is no salvation without the whole of it-and that is what makes the church. Therefore, the same things that connects one with salvation, connects him with the church, and at the same time. For the same process that saves a man, adds him to the church.

3. "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones."

The apostle here alludes to Adam and Eve, and the reference is cited from Gen. 2:24, where Adam said of Eve,


"This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Paul applies that language to Christ and the church- "for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." That is just a strong way of saying that we are mem-bers of him. As Eve was a member of Adam, we are members of Christ. That is a rhetorical emphasis; it is putting emphasis on the fact that we are members of him. We are of Christ; members of him, if we are in the church. If you are of Christ, you are of the church; if you are not of the church, you are not of Christ. If you are in Christ, you are in the church; if you are not in the church, you are not in Christ. If you belong to Christ, you belong to the church; if you do not belong to the church, you do not belong to Christ. If you are related to Christ, you are related to the church; if you are not related to the church, you are not re-lated to Christ. If you are a member of Christ, you are a member of the church; if you are not a member of the church you are not a member of Christ. "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, of his bones." That is what that state-ment means. If we are in the church, we are members of him.

4. "This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

Here is the closing statement of the divine syllabus on the church-"This is a great mystery." But "mystery" does not mean something that cannot be understood. It means that which cannot be known until it is made known, until it is revealed, known only by revelation. The relation be-tween Christ and the church, and the plan of salvation con-nected therewith, belong to the realm of revelation, and are not learned through human reason or learned by man's wis-dom. Science does not reveal the divine plan of salvation. Philosophy does not teach it. To the Corinthians (chapter


2:10-16) the apostle said that "the natural man (or natural men) cannot receive the things of the Spirit." Natural men cannot receive the knowledge of these things through natural channels of information. The chemist is a natural man and through chemical experiments he may receive scientific in-formation, but he cannot receive the things of divine revelation through his natural experiments. The geologist is a natural man and he can receive sedimentary information through his geological discoveries, but he cannot receive the things of divine revelation through his natural research. The astronomer is a natural man, and through his telescope and spectroscope he may receive astrophysical information through his astronomical science, but he cannot know anything about the church or any other matter of divine revelation through natural investigations.

In the first chapter of the Ephesian epistle the apostle set forth the revealed character of Christianity, and declared that the scheme of human redemption as foretold by the prophets of the Old Testament had been fulfilled in the plan of salvation as revealed in the New Testament. The scheme of redemption could not have originated with man. The character of the church and nature of the gospel are proofs of the direct inspiration of the writers of the Bible.

Divine revelation versus human prudence is seen, there-fore, in the existence of the church. It is not a natural institu-tion. "To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: in whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him" (Chapter 3:10-12) As the heavenly firmament declares the glory of God and his creative handiwork (Psa. 19), so the spiritual institution manifests by its exhibition the divine origin of the church, that it embodies the manifold wisdom of God, all-comprehensive of the various features of the divine plan, making perceptible to men the unfolding of the eternal


purpose. The divine architect is exhibited in the church, as a building exhibits the skill of the architect that designed it. The church is divine; it could not have been designed by the human mind.

"This is a great mystery"-a great revelation indeed- "concerning Christ and the church."



The prologue and the epilogue of the Ephesian syllabus is that the setting up of the church of Christ on the earth was the culmination of the plan and the purpose of God from the beginning of time to the dawn of eternity. It was the inauguration of a kingdom not the world-"now is my kingdom not from hence"-but the "kingdom of heaven" among men. The kingdom of Christ was paralleled in a sense with the world kingdom of Rome, but infinitely grander in character, scope and power. The origin of the kingdom of the Son of God, its identity and its perpetuity in the earth, "throughout all ages, world without end" impart to it divine characteristics attached to no other institution.

(1) The origin of the church. Paul declares in Eph. 2:14-16 that the church was estab-

lished "for to make in himself of twain one new man .... that he might reconcile both unto God in one body."

First: There is the miracle of creation. The church is re-ferred to as the "one new man"-a divine creation. The physical creation was perfected in Adam; the spiritual creation was perfected in the church. "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or princi-palities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him and he is before all things and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the be-ginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." (Col. 1:16-18) The church came into being by a divine act of creation as direct as the exertion of power in the physical creation. The miracles attending the inauguration of the church bear testimony to this fact. But these miracles were provisional, not permanent. The miracle of creation did not become a part of the created world, but was only the means of creating the world; so the miracles connected with the inauguration of the church and the revelation of the gospel did not become a part of the re-vealed will of God, but were the means of revealing the will of God and confirming divine revelation. They were there-fore provisional and not permanent. The miracle of creation gave place to natural law, and the miracles in the beginning of the church gave place to spiritual Jaw-the revealed word of God in the New Testament.

Second: There is the law of procreation.

The law of procreation is the law of propagation. It is the established law of the universe in all realms-every seed after its kind."Let the earth put forth grass ....herbs yield-ing seed . ...after hiskind." (Gen. 1:1-12) "And the earth brought forth . ...yielding seed ....and the trees bearing fruit wherein is the seed thereof, after his kind." This is the unvarying law and order in the natural world.

The law of propagation applies to the spiritual realm as definitely as in the natural realm and operates according to the same principle. This fact is fundamental in the parable of the sower and the seed, where Luke's application of the parable reads: "The seed is the word of God." (Lk. 8:11) Matthew represents the good seed as "the sons of the kingdom" (Matt. 13); so the word of God is the "seed of the kingdom."

The new birth is by seed (1 Pet. 1:23-25), where Peter said, "being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of in-corruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." Jesus told Nicodemus that "except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," and Peter explained


how such a birth was produced. Paul said it is "by the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15), and James said it is "by the word of truth" (Jas. 1:18).

Paul taught the Romans that law, not miracle, operates in the spiritual realm, by declaring to them that it is "the law of the spirit of life"-the gospel-that makes one free from sin. The propagation of the truth therefore is the principle by which the church, or kingdom, is maintained and perpetuated, and not by a fleshly succession.

(2) The perpetuity of the church. When Paul declared in the Ephesian syllabus that the church of Christ is according to the eternal purpose of God, his statement incorporates all of the prophecies of the Old Testament foretelling the establishment of the kingdom of Christ. Daniel foretold that the kingdom of Christ would be set up in the days of the fourth universal kingdom-the Roman empire-and that this dominion and kingdom would be given to Christ when he went with the clouds of heaven to God, the Ancient of days. (Dan. 2 and 7) The beginning of the kingdom therefore dates from the accession of Christ

to the throne in heaven, after his ascension from the earth back to the Father in heaven.

First: This kingdom stands forever.

The kingdom of Daniel's prophecy is identified with the kingdom that Jesus announced in Mk. 1:14-15 and Matt. 16: 18-19, and is the kingdom of Christ, the church. Daniel said it would "stand forever" and Jesus said the gates of hell shall not "prevail against it." Paul called it the kingdom which "cannot be moved" (Heb. 12:28). If the church is not the same kingdom prophesied by Daniel, then the kingdom of Daniel is not yet in existence; but the kingdom now in exist-ence "cannot be moved." If Daniel's kingdom is yet to come it also "shall stand forever." But the present kingdom which cannot be moved, cannot yield for the future kingdom which shall stand forever to begin. One cannot end to let the other


begin-so when that happens, an irresistible force will come in contact with an immovable object, the result of which will be what?

Jesus Christ connected the church and the kingdom in Matt. 16 as one and the same thing; Paul connected the king-dom and the church in Col. 1:13, 18 as one and the same thing, and in Heb. 12: 23, 28, the church is declared to be the immovable kingdom now in existence. The perpetuity of the church of Christ on the earth is therefore established and is co-extensive with the kingdom of Christ on the earth.

Second: The church throughout all ages.

Again, Paul said to the Ephesians: "To him be glory in the church throughout all ages." But the glory of Christ is not confined to the earth. Jesus prayed for the Father to glorify him with the glory that he had in the beginning, upon his return to heaven (Jno. 17:5); and he told the disciples that he would "enter into his glory" when he ascended (Lk. 24:26); and Peter declares that God "gave him glory" when he went into heaven (1 Pet. 1:21). So the glory of the church may not always be or have been confined to its visible existence on the earth. The glory of the church may be lost in apostasy. Haggai the prophet asked: "Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory? and how do ye see it now? is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing?" (Hag. 2:3) As the holy Shekinah was not present in the tabernacle, so of the church-her glory may depart. Daniel 8:12 refers to the "truth cast down to the earth," and Paul declares that the church is the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), so the church may be cast down-all of which indicates a state of apostasy. Where was the church when the truth was cast down to the ground? It was in the seed. Take for an illustration the wheat that slumbers in the pyramid of Egypt, which had not been propagated for centuries, yet remains in a perfect state of preservation, and when planted it produces the same wheat, after its kind. That is what


is meant by the statement "the seed is the word of God." The visible succession of the church, a fleshly succession, is not essential to "standing forever" or to "not prevail against," for the kingdom exists in the seed, just as the wheat lived in the seed, preserved in the Egyptian granary for centuries.

The church is perpetuated through seed, not through succession of visible congregations, and if lost to sight in the centuries, the seed of God's word that produces it remains in a state of perfect preservation, therefore in the seed the church has its existence, for the word of God will bear fruit after its kind, as in the beginning-Gen. 1:12-and in every realm of life.

(3) The identity of the church.

The New Testament has put unchangeable marks on the church of Christ by which to identify it in any age of the world. It is being asked on every hand, Where is the true church of Christ? Or, what is the church of Christ? Or, out of the many churches in the world today, how can one know which church is right? Forgetting the conditions of present-day religious society, let us go back about nineteen hundred years to Jerusalem. That is the beginning corner for the survey. There we can set our theodolite, take our position and measure the scriptural boundary lines of the church of Christ. There are certain cardinal principles by which it is known, both of a positive and negative character.

1. The church of Christ is a spiritual body, not a political institution.

The Roman Catholic church is a politico-ecclesiastical institution in aim and organization, and does not deserve to be called a church. It is patterned more after the political pat-tern of Roman empire than after the New Testament pattern of the Jerusalem church. The fact that the pope thirsts for temporal power and craves conquest of earthly governments and world dominion is in itself incompatible with the spirit of the announcements of Jesus Christ that his kingdom was "not of the world" and his kingdom "not from hence." When the Jews charged Jesus with sedition, because he said he was king, and accused Pilate of being a traitor to Caesar if he let him go: if Jesus had intended to inaugurate an earthly kingdom of a political nature, the charges of the Jews would have been true. But when Pilate questioned Jesus on that point-his claim of kingship-Jesus told Pilate that his king-dom was not worldly, and he convinced Pilate that it was true. But today, the President of the United States of America sends an ambassador with political portfolio to the pope of Rome in his political Vatican state. Imagine, if you can, Jesus Christ as the head of a temporal government, and a rival political power sending an ambassador to his earthly capitol? That is exactly the kind of a king he refused to be while here on earth when the preaching of the kingdom suf-fered violence and men of violence took it by force-they sought to employ violent, forcible methods to make Jesus an earthly king. Would the pope of Rome have refused? He did not-when the armies of the Vatican waged war on his behalf against the armies of France and Italy, the effort was made to enforce the articles of the Syllabus of Pius IX concerning the temporal rights of the Roman Catholic Church against the nations of Europe, and that by the force of arms. Yet the pope claims to be the vicar of God and the vicegerent of Jesus Christ! The political character of the Roman Catholic church is contrary to the spiritual character of the New Testament church of Christ.

2. The head, the founder and the foundation of the church is Jesus Christ.

An institution built upon any other foundation is not the church of Christ. If the foundation of the church was Peter, he said nothing in his sermons or in his epistles to indicate that he knew it, for every word that he said and every line that he penned put the emphasis on the headship, authority and preeminence of Jesus Christ. The prophet Isaiah said (Isa. 28:16) that the foundation laid in Zion would


be "a tried stone." Jesus said that he would build the church and the gates of hell should not prevail against it. (Matt. 16:18) Peter had said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered, "Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." The argument turns on "thou" and "this." The word thou refers to the apostle, and the word this refers to Christ. If when Jesus died he had not arisen from the dead and revived, the gates of hell (hades) would have prevailed. But Jesus "died, and rose, and re-vived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living" (Rom. 14:9), and by this act the foundation was tried. The foundation stood the test. It is stronger than death, Satan, hell and the grave. The claims of Jesus were established. Jesus Christ, not Simon Peter, is the foundation of the church, and it follows therefore that Roman Catholicism is built upon tradition and not upon the word of God.

3. The time and place of the establishment of the church was the city of Jerusalem, A. D. 33 on the day of Pentecost, of Acts the second chapter.

The importance of the beginning time and place cannot be overestimated. The surveyor must find the right beginning corner to set his theodolite before he can make a survey. When did the church of Christ come into organic existence? When did Jesus Christ inaugurate his reign on the earth? It is evident that the church did not begin with Adam and Eve inside the garden of Eden before the fall, nor outside of Eden after their disobedience, for both the Old Testament and the New Testament set forth the gradual unfolding of the scheme of redemption from the garden of Eden to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said (Mark 4:28) that the kingdom of God is like seed cast into the ground and bringing forth fruit, "first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear, but when the fruit is brought forth, he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come." The church existed in purpose, in promise, in prophecy, and in preparation, before it existed in fact. It was "according to the eternal pur-


pose" of God; it was the subject of promise and prophecy in the dispensations of the Old Testament. It was in the stage of preparation in the mission of John the Baptist and the personal ministry of Jesus. It was during this ministry that Jesus said: "I will build my church." (Matt. 16:18) If the church is a patriarchal institution, and began with Abraham, Jesus would have said "In Abraham's day I did build "my church." If the church is a Mosaic institution, he would have said, "Moses set up the church in the wilderness." If it is a "Johannic" institution, he would have said, "John established my church on the banks of the Jordan." Or if it was organized during his own personal ministry, he would have said, "I have already built my church."

If it can be shown that the foundation was "a tried stone" when God made a covenant with Abraham, it may be admitted that the church was then and there established. Or if it can be shown from the testimony of John or Jesus or any other messenger of God or harbinger of Christ that the foun-dation was tried when John called the Jews to repentance, it may be admitted that the church began at that time. But such cannot be done. Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church. The foundation was tried when Jesus died, entered hades, conquered the grave and arose from the dead. The foundation was then laid in Zion, Jerusalem, the city of David, not in Rome, the city of the Caesars. Isaiah prophesied it, when he said: "It shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it . . . . and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." (Isa. 2:2-4) Jesus Christ alluded to this prophecy in Luke's record of the great Commission, and said, "beginning at Jerusalem." (Lk. 24:47) He further told them to "tarry in the city of Jerusalem" until they received the power from on high. Jesus Christ thus marked Pentecost as the beginning


time and Jerusalem as the beginning place. Peter recognized Jerusalem as the beginning of the official acts of the apostles, not only as recorded in Acts 2:1-10, but also when he defended his visit to the house of Cornelius to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 11:15), and Paul referred to Jerusalem as the "mother of us all" (Gal. 4:26).

The church of Christ was established in Jerusalem in the year A. D. 33, and I am urging all of you to leave Rome, whence came Roman Catholicism and go back to Jerusalem, whence came Christianity and the true church of Christ.

4. The terms of admission into the church and the law of pardon were announced at Jerusalem and clearly defined when the church was set up.

Isaiah the prophet said the law of the Lord should go out of Zion and the word of God from Jerusalem. Jesus said that remission of sins should be preached in his name be-ginning from Jerusalem. Here the law of remission of sins was published at the beginning to continue to the end of time, according to both Matthew's and Luke's record of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20; Lk. 24:46-49). The apostles for the first time used the keys of the kingdom, binding and loosing sins on the terms of the gospel, as com-manded by Jesus in the records of Matthew and John before he ascended to heaven (Matt. 16:19; Matt. 18:18; Jno. 20:23). For the first time Christ was preached (Matt. 16:20; 17:9); the Holy Spirit began his work of conversion through the gospel (Jno. 7:39; 16:7-8); and the first additions were made to the church (Acts 2:41, 47). In the Great Commission Jesus had commanded faith, repentance and baptism, as terms of pardon and conditions of salvation (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Lk. 24:47). True to the constitution of Christ for his church, Peter commanded the inquirers on Pentecost to "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38.)


Every denomination has a law of admission peculiar to itself, but we boldly affirm that any church which has laws of admission unknown to the New Testament, or offers salvation to sinners short of these announced terms of pardon, is not the church of Christ. The promise of salvation is placed after both faith and baptism in the Commission of Christ, and stands in that relation to these terms in all the gospel records.

The first thing that must be done by the sinner is to hear the gospel of Christ and believe it. But there is nothing said in the Bible about salvation by faith only, although that doctrine is said to be full of comfort. A false doctrine may be comforting to those who do not understand the obligations of the gospel but there is no comfort in anything to a man who knows the truth outside of a full surrender to its de-mands.

The command to repent involves sorrow for sin, a change of mind, a resolution to abandon disobedience. After men heard the gospel and believed it, they were commanded to repent-change their minds and reform their lives.

The confession of the name of Christ is then in order. "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" and "I be-lieve that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God." (Matt. 16:17; Acts 8:37) Believing in Christ is more than a mere intellectual assent, or consent of the mind to a truth or fact. John says, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is born of God." (1 Jno. 5:1) Have you been born of water and the Spirit (Jno. 3:5), or born again? No? Then you do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in any true sense of the term. Do you keep the commandments of Christ-have you obeyed the gospel? No? Then you do not believe what the confession actually is, for John says, "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his command-ments is a liar and the truth is not in him." (1 Jno. 2:4) Apply this rule to all who claim to be believers in Christ, and


it will condemn all who so profess who have and will not obey the terms of the gospel. The name of Christ involves his authority, and to confess his name is to make full sur-render to his authority. To truly confess him is the grandest word of the human tongue, and to obey him is the grandest work of the human life.

After the confession of faith in Christ comes baptism. Every institution has a design peculiar to itself. What is the design of baptism? It has been called an "outward sign of an inward work" and others refer to it as "the seal of pardon;" still others call it "the door into the church," and stranger yet. it is said by some to be "essential to church membership and admission to the Lord's Supper," but unessential or non-essential to salvation. An examination of a list of Bible pas-sages will be sufficient answer to such inharmonious theories and human opinions, and will settle the question.

I submit the following group of passages: (a) "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mk. 1:4); (b) The people who came to hear him preach "were all baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins" (Mk. 1:3-5); (c) "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Jno. 3:5); (d) "Go ye therefore2 and teach all nations, baptizing them in (into) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19); (e) "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mk. 16:16); (f) "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38); (g) "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord" (Acts 10:48); (h) "And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, straightway" (Acts 16:33); (i) "Many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were bap-tized" (Acts 18:8); (j) "Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16);

(k) "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into


Jesus Christ were baptized into his death" (Rom. 6:3); (1) "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27); (m) "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth now also save us" (1 Pet. 3:21); (n) "And there are three that bear witness on earth, the spirit, the water and the blood, and these three agree in one" (1 Jno. 5:8);

(o) "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, and are made to drink into the one Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:13). A careful and impartial consideration of this list of fifteen passages will definitely decide and permanently settle whether or not baptism is a mere nonessential, only a "church ordi-nance," or a necessary condition of salvation.

As to the action of baptism, a look into the passages in the New Testament that describe the practice of the apostles in all examples of baptism on record will also decide that point, (a) "And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins" (Mk. 1:4-5);

(b) "And John was baptizing in Enon, near to Salem, because there was much water there; and they came, and were bap-tized" (Jno. 3:23); (c) "Jesus came from Nazareth to Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan, and straightway coming up out of the water" (Mk. 1:9-11); (d) "We are buried with him by baptism into death" (Rom. 6:4); (e) "Buried with him inbaptism, whereinalsoye are risenwith him" (Col. 2: 12); (f) "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word" (Eph. 5:25-26); (g) "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:5).

It is admitted by all recognized scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, that immersion was the practice of the apostles and the apostolic churches; but it is urged that sprinkling and pouring may be accepted as "modes" of baptism. But a "mode" of baptism, could not itself be the act of baptism. If sprinkling is baptism, the mode of baptism would have to be the mode of sprinkling a subject-whether with the fingers, or the use of a sprinkler or a squirt-gun, I presume! And if pouring is baptism, then the mode of baptism would have to be the mode of pouring-in that case, I suppose, a choice between pouring water out of a pitcher on the subject or turning a hose on him! Immersion being baptism, the mode of baptism would be the mode of immersing the subject-face forward or backward, for instance, or in case of an invalid, immersed on a stretcher. But the mode and the action of baptism can-not be made identical.

The first man ever to be sprinkled for baptism was Novatian, in the year 252 A. D., when the bishops of Rome authorized his sprinkling in lieu of baptism because he was sick. Sprinkling later became general among sick people, and gradually adopted for others, as it was argued that the state of one's health has nothing to do with the meaning of baptism, or what the action of baptism is; and in 1311 sprink-ling was sanctioned by the pope, made legal and became an ordinance in the Roman Catholic church. It is therefore a relic of Rome, yet practiced by the protestant denominations, and has no higher authority than the pope-which means that in the sight of God it has none at all.

As to the subjects of baptism, and the character of the subjects, the New Testament names teaching, faith and repentance as conditions of baptism. "Go ...teach ...bap-tizing them" (Matt. 28:19); "He that believeth and is bap-tized" (Mk. 16:16); "Repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38); "When they believed Philip preaching ....they were bap-tized both men and women" (Acts 8:12); "Many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized" (Acts 18:8). No example of infant baptism can be found in the New Testament. Here again the Roman Catholic church has set up human authority against the word of God. The baptism of infants was a subject of limited discussion as early as the third century, when there were some who thought infants should be immersed along with adults. The subject became a controversy in the fifth century but not until the tenth


century was the baptism of infants authorized by the pope and made legal as an ordinance of the Roman Catholic church.

In their teaching on baptism the Catholics are wrong on every point. They are wrong on action of baptism, the sub-jects of baptism, the administration of baptism, and the design of baptism. Though the Catholic church does teach that baptism is for the remission of sins, they are still wrong on that point in that they make baptism a "sacrament" of the church, and teach that the "sacrament of baptism" is necessary to deliver all, even infants, from "original sin." That is the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration" which consigns un-baptized infants to hell, and is therefore the doctrine of infant damnation. The Bible does not teach the doctrine of in-herent total depravity, or "original sin," and therefore does not teach infant baptismal regeneration, nor any other kind of "baptismal regeneration." The New Testament teaches that to a penitent believer baptism is a condition of pardon, is therefore for or in order to the remission of sins, but that is not baptismal regeneration-it is simple obedience to the gospel of Christ as a means of salvation by grace through faith.

Also in the administration of Catholic baptism there are fifteen "ceremonies of baptism" unknown to the New Testa-ment and unheard of until a human being, a fallible man, the pope of Rome, set them up as ordinances of the Catholic church, having no evidence for support than tradition, and no authority for existence than that of the pope. The baptism of Roman Catholics therefore is not New Testament baptism; the Catholic church is not the church of Christ; and Catholic baptism having no scriptural validity, Catholics are therefore not Christians.

5. The ordinances of the New Testament church consist of simple items of worship prescribed and clearly defined by Christ and the apostles.

In the Great Commission Jesus commanded the apostles to "teach them to observe all things that I have commanded


you." This the apostles did-no more, no less. Therefore in the teaching of the apostles and the practice of the apostolic churches we have the "all things commanded." No man or set of men possesses the right to command anything else; no Christian has the liberty to observe anything else.

The worship of the New Testament church consists of assembly on the first day of the week; teaching, preaching, exhortation; prayer and singing and giving; and the observance of the Lord's Supper. Vocal music, singing, alone was the practice of the New Testament church. Instrumental music in the worship of any body of people claiming to be the church, or professing to be Christians, was not known until Pope Vitalian I introduced instrumental music into Catholic worship in the year 670 A. D., but not until 800 A. D. did it become the general practice of the Catholic church. It has no more authority than all the other innovations of Roman Catholicism. It is just another relic of Rome, another example of the fact that protestant denominations are not yet outside Rome's front yard. Incense burning, pictures, images, holy water, the rosary, mariolatry, kissing the pope's toe, the sign of the cross, sprinkling for baptism, infant baptism, and in-strumental music in the worship, are all the relics of Rome- to which may be added such affairs as Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter and the Lenten season, and it is either plain ignorance on the part of protestant people to follow the tra-ditions of Roman Catholicism in these things, thus bowing to the pope and in principle kissing his toe, or else it is the same disregard for the word of God and lack of respect for the authority of Jesus Christ on their part that is manifested by all Roman Catholics the world over. We heed to get away from Rome and go back to Jerusalem, where the law of the Lord went forth, and the word of God was promulged. The question is not whether sprinkling or pouring, or any of these other things, are regarded by men as sufficient and appropriate, but whether such things were taught by the apostles of Christ and practiced by the churches of the New


Testament on the authority of Christ. It cannot be shown that any of these practices of Rome exist by such authority, and there is not the slightest trace of any of them during the lives of the apostles of Christ, nor for many, many years, and in some cases, many centuries afterwards.

6. The churches of the New Testament had but one system of government, which consisted in the organization of the congregation, the local church.

"Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with bishops and deacons." (Phil. 1:1) This passage alone is sufficient as a statement of the organization of the New Testament church-elders, deacons, members, making up the local church. Any institution having any other system of church organiza-tion or government is not apostolic.

An institution without an organization is a nondescript; but an institution with a human organization is nonscriptural. And the scriptures do not say anything about such offices as Presiding Elder, Archbishop, Cardinal, Priest, Pontiff and Pope, in the church of Jesus Christ.

The elders and bishops were the same men and the terms referred to the same office. They are nowhere in the New Testament named together as distinct or separate from each other. The same persons were described by both names, and the function of pastors was expressly applied to them, the elders, the bishops of the congregation. They had no juris-diction outside the congregation to which they belonged, and possessed no authority to oversee any work not pertaining to the congregation in which they were the overseers or elders. There was not even a centralization of eldership, much less an ecclesiastical hierarchy, in the New Testament. But as departures came, the eldership grew into a presbytery, and the presbytery grew into an episcopacy, and the episcopacy, grew into the hierarchy, at the head of which stands the pope. But from the pope down to the priest, the organiza-

tion of Roman Catholicism is both unscriptural and anti-scriptural.

The members of the church were known as disciples, Christians, believers, saints, children of God, and brethren. The churches were called churches of Christ, churches of God. as congregations; and church of the Lord, or Christ, and church of God in the aggregate. Thus the terminology of the New Testament is simple and direct; but the nomenclature of Roman Catholicism is ostentatious, pretentious and pom-pous. Observe, for instance, the high-sounding titles of Roman prelates: Pope, Cardinal, Archbishop, Hierarchy, Episcopacy, Tribunal, Council, Sacred College, Sacred Consistory, the Curia, the Rota, the Propaganda, the Signature, the Clergy, the Laity, not to mention the dozens of sumptious and ceremonious titles belonging to the legion of so-called holy orders of the dec-orated, titular, diabolical system of Rome, the high and mighty haughtiness of which are all incompatible with the simplicity of the church Christ revealed in the New Testament.

7. The church of the New Testament had but one bond of union and communion, the one and only apostle's creed, the New Testament itself.

The existence of a sect depends upon a human creed; their existence is parallel with their creed; abolish the creed and it abolishes the sect; perpetuate the creed and it per-petuates the sect. All human creeds either add to or sub-tract from the New Testament, and are distinguished from it by the foreign matter they contain. All human creeds introduce terminology incompatible with the phraseology of the New Testament and with the simplicity of the primitive faith, and substitute doctrines concerning the church, concern-ing the gospel, concerning the Holy Spirit, and concerning Christ Himself, and even concerning God. The church existed, and yet exists, in all respects, as divinely designed, without the formulated creeds of men. The purpose of the New Testament is to furnish the faith, embracing all that


relates to creed; to induce obedience, embracing all that relates to commands; and to promote experience, embracing all that relates to the Christian life. Why the creeds of Rome's councils and the encyclicals and syllabuses of Rome's popes? They are all rebellious declarations of independence against the revealed will of God in the word of God.

The entire system of Roman Catholicism is false from its first letter to its last syllable. Its name is unknown in the Bible. It makes human tradition equal to divine revelation. It teaches the infallibility of the pope. It attaches to a mere man the title of "holy father," applied by Jesus Christ only to God, when addressing his Father in heaven (Jno. 17:11). It teaches priestly forgiveness. It originated the substitution of sprinkling for baptism. It originated the innovation of me-chanical instruments of music within the realm of Christian worship, and numerous other changes and variations from the authorized worship of the early church. It has always opposed through all the centuries the private investigation of the scrip-tures. It has combined itself with civil government for power and seeks to dominate and control all the governments of the earth. Its officials-all of them-from the pope down-are unknown to the word of God. Rome, the mother of harlots! Rome is the mother, and the great harlot is the Roman Catholic church.

My friends, my appeal to you against the corruptions of Romanism has been made. Now I plead: Let us go back to Jerusalem. Let us go back beyond Rome-back to the founda-tion laid in Zion: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Let us be guided by the scriptures alone in faith and practice, and rally under the infallible standard of the Bible and the Bible alone. Nothing else can satisfy the demands of the King who requires of us his subjects an undivided fealty and an unqualified allegiance. If any of you here have not before now made due and proper acknowledgment of the name and authority of Christ, and will now come to pledge with us your full subservience to Him who is the only


Potentate, the King of kings, and the Lord of lords, who hath only immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable, the only Redeemer of man and Saviour of sinners, our Lord Jesus Christ-in his name, for his sake and for your salvation, we urge you now to do so, while this audience together sings the grand gospel refrain that has been announced.



A Political Expostulation



The History Of The Vatican Council, The Papal Syllabus And The Vatican Decrees







In the prosecution of a purpose not polemical, but pacific, I have been led to employ words which belong, more or less, to the region of religious controversy; and which, though they were themselves few, seem to require, from the various feelings they have aroused, that I should carefully define, elucidate, and defend them. The task is not of a kind agreeable to me; but I proceed to perform it.

Among the causes which have tended to disturb and perplex the public mind in the consideration of our own re-ligious difficulties, one has been a certain alarm at the aggres-sive activity and imagined growth of the Roman Church in this country. All are aware of our susceptibility on this side; and it was not, I think, improper for one who desires to re-move every thing that can interfere with a calm and judicial temper, and who believes the alarm to be groundless, to state, pointedly though briefly, some reasons for that belief.

Accordingly I did not scruple to use the following language in a paper inserted in the number of the Contemporary Review for the month of October [1874]. I was speaking of 'the question whether a handful of the clergy are or are not en-gaged in an utterly hopeless and visionary effort to Romanize the Church and people of England.'

'At no time since the bloody reign of Mary has such a scheme been possible. But if it had been possible in the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries, it would still have become impossible In the nineteenth: when Rome has substituted for the proud boast of semper eadem a policy of violence and change in faith; when she has refurbished and paraded anew every rusty tool she was fondly thought to have disused; when no one can become her convert without renouncing his moral and mental freedom, and placing his civil loyalty and duty at the mercy of another; and when she has equally repudiated modern thought and ancient history.'

Had I been, when I wrote this passage, as I now am, addressing myself in considerable measure to my Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, I should have striven to avoid the seeming roughness of some of these expressions; but as the question is now about their substance, from which I am not in any particular disposed to recede, any attempt to re-cast their general form would probably mislead. I proceed, then, to deal with them on their merits.

More than one friend of mine among those who have been led to join the Roman Catholic communion has made this passage the subject, more or less, of expostulation. Now, in my opinion, the assertions which it makes are, as coming from a layman who has spent most and the best years of his life in the observation and practice of politics, not aggressive, but defensive.

It is neither the abettors of the Papal Chair, nor any one who, however far from being an abettor of the Papal Chair, actually writes from a Papal point of view, that has a right to remonstrate with the world at large; but it is the world at large, on the contrary, that has the fullest right to remonstrate, first, with his Holiness; secondly, with those who share his proceedings; thirdly, even with such as passively allow and accept them.

I, therefore, as one of the world at large, propose to ex-postulate in my turn. I shall strive to show to such of my Roman Catholic fellow-subjects as may kindly give me a hear-ing that, after the singular steps which the authorities of their Church have in these last years thought fit to take, the people of this country, who fully believe in their loyalty, are entitled, on purely civil grounds, to expect from them some declaration or manifestation of opinion in reply to that ecclesiastical party


in their Church who have laid down, in their name, principles adverse to the purity and integrity of civil allegiance.

Undoubtedly my allegations are of great breadth. Such broad allegations require a broad and a deep foundation. The first question which they raise is, Are they, as to the material part of them, true? But even their truth might not suffice to show that their publication was opportune. The second question, then, which they raise is, Are they, for any practical purpose, material? And there is yet a third, though a minor question, which arises out of the propositions in connection with their authorship, Were they suitable to be set forth by the present writer?

To these three questions I will now set myself to reply. And the matter of my reply will, as I conceive, constitute and convey an appeal to the understandings of my Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen which I trust that, at the least, some among them may deem not altogether unworthy of their consideration.

From the language used by some of the organs of Roman Catholic opinion, it is, I am afraid, plain that in some quarters they have given deep offense. Displeasure, indignation, even fury, might be said to mark the language which in the heat of the moment has been expressed here and there. They have been hastily treated as an attack made upon Roman Catholics generally-nay, as an insult offered them. It is obvious to reply that of Roman Catholics generally they state nothing. Together with a reference to 'converts,' of which I shall say more, they constitute generally a free and strong animadversion on the conduct of the Papal Chair, and of its advisers and abettors. If I am told that he who animadverts upon these assails thereby, or insults, Roman Catholics at large, who do not choose their ecclesiastical rulers, and are not recog-nized as having any voice in the government of their Church, I can not be bound by or accept a proposition which seems to me to be so little in accordance with reason.

Before all things, however, I should desire it to be under-stood that, in the remarks now offered, I desire to eschew not only religious bigotry, but likewise theological controversy. Indeed, with theology, except in its civil bearing-with theology as such-I have here nothing whatever to do. But it is the peculiarity of Roman theology that, by thrusting itself into the temporal domain, it naturally, and even necessarily, comes to be a frequent theme of political discussion. To quiet-minded Roman Catholics it must be a subject of infinite annoyance that their religion is, on this ground more than any other, the subject of criticism; more than any other the occasion of conflicts with the State and of civil disquietude. I feel sincerely how much hardship their case entails. But this hardship is brought upon them altogether by the conduct of the authorities of their own Church. Why did theology enter so largely into the debates of Parliament on Roman Catholic Emancipation? Certainly not because our statesmen and debaters of fifty years ago had an abstract love of such controversies, but because it was extensively believed that the Pope of Rome had been and was a trespasser upon ground which belonged to the civil authority, and that he affected to determine by spiritual prerogative questions of the civil sphere. This fact, if fact it be, and not the truth or falsehood, the reasonableness or unreasonableness, of any article of purely religious belief, is the whole and sole cause of the mischief. To this fact, and to this fact alone, my language is referable; but for this fact it would have been neither my duty nor my desire to use it. All other Christian bodies are content with freedom in their own religious domain. Orientals, Lutherans, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Nonconformists, one and all, in the present day, contentedly and thankfully accept the benefits of civil order; never pretend that the State is not its own master; make no religious claims to temporal posses-sions or advantages; and, consequently, never are in perilous collision with the State. Nay more, even so I believe it is with the mass of Roman Catholics individually. But not so with


the leaders of their Church, or with those who take pride in following the leaders. Indeed, this has been made matter of boast:

'There is not another Church so called [than the Roman], nor any community professing to be a Church, which does not submit, or obey, or hold its peace when the civil governors of the world command.'-The Present Crisis of the Holy See, by H. E. Manning, D. D. London, 1861, p. 75.

The Rome of the Middle Ages claimed universal mon-archy. The modern Church of Rome has abandoned nothing, retracted nothing. Is that all? Far from it. By condemning (as will be seen) those who, like Bishop Doyle in 1826, charge the mediaeval Popes with aggression, she unconditionally, even if covertly, maintains what the mediaeval Popes maintained. But even this is not the worst. The worst by far is that where-as in the national Churches and communities of the Middle Ages there was a brisk, vigorous, and constant opposition to these outrageous claims-an opposition which stoutly asserted its own orthodoxy, which always caused itself to be respected, and which even sometimes gained the upper hand, now, in this nineteenth century of ours, and while it is growing old, this same opposition has been put out of court, and judicially extinguished within the Papal Church, by the recent decrees of the Vatican. And it is impossible, for persons accepting those decrees justly to complain when such documents are subjected in good faith to a strict examination as respects their compatibility with civil right and the obedience of subjects.

In defending my language, I shall carefully mark its limits. But all defense is reassertion, which properly requires a deliberate reconsideration; and no man who thus reconsiders should scruple, if he find so much as a word that may convey a false impression, to amend it. Exactness in stating truth according to the measure of our intelligence is an indispensable condition of justice and of a title to be heard.

My propositions, then, as they stood, are these:

1. That 'Rome has substituted for the proud boast of semper eadem a policy of violence and change in faith.'

2. That she has refurbished and paraded anew every rusty tool she was fondly thought to have disused.

3. That no one can now become her convert without re-nouncing his moral and mental freedom, and placing his civil loyalty and duty at the mercy of another.

4. That she ('Rome') has equally repudiated modern thought and ancient history.


Of the first and fourth of these propositions I shall dispose rather summarily, as they appear to belong to the theological domain. They refer to a fact, and they record an opinion. One fact to which they refer is this: that, in days within my memory, the constant, favorite, and imposing argument of Roman controversialists was the unbroken and absolute identity in belief of the Roman Church from the days of our Saviour until now. No one who has at all followed the course of this literature during the last forty years can fail to be sensible of the change in its present tenor. More and more have the as-sertions of continuous uniformity of doctrine receded into scarcely penetrable shadow. More and more have another series of assertions, of a living authority, ever ready to open, adopt, and shape Christian doctrine according to the times, taken their place. Without discussing the abstract compati-bility of these lines of argument, I note two of the immense practical differences between them. In the first, the office claimed by the Church is principally that of a witness to facts; in the second, principally that of a judge, if not a revealer, of doctrine. In the first, the processes which the Church under-takes are subject to a constant challenge and appeal to history; in the second, no amount of historical testimony can avail against the unmeasured power of the theory of development. Most important, most pregnant considerations, these, at least for two classes of persons: for those who think that exaggerated doctrines of Church power are among the real and serious dangers of the age; and for those who think that against all forms, both of superstition and of unbelief, one main preserva-tive is to be found in maintaining the truth and authority of history, and the inestimable value of the historic spirit.

So much for the fact; as for the opinion that the recent Papal decrees are at war with modern thought, and that, purporting to enlarge the necessary creed of Christendom, they involve a violent breach with history, this is a matter unfit for me to discuss, as it is a question of Divinity, but not unfit for me to have mentioned in my article, since the opinion given there is the opinion of those with whom I was en-deavoring to reason, namely, the great majority of the British public.

If it is thought that the word violence was open to ex-ception, I regret I can not give it up. The justification of the ancient definitions of the Church, which have endured the storms of 1500 years, was to be found in this, that they were not arbitrary or willful, but that they wholly sprang from and related to theories rampant at the time, and regarded as menacing to Christian belief. Even the Canons of the Council of Trent have in the main this amount, apart from their mat-ter, of presumptive warrant. But the decrees of the present perilous Pontificate have been passed to favor and precipitate prevailing currents of opinion in the ecclesiastical world of Rome. The growth of what is often termed Protestants Mariolatry, and of belief in Papal Infallibility, was notoriously advancing, but it seems not fast enough to satisfy the dominant party. To aim the deadly blows of 1854 and 1870 at the old historic, scientific, and moderate school, was surely an act of violence; and with this censure the proceeding of 1870 has actually been visited by the first living theologian now within the Roman communion-I mean Dr. John Henry Newman, who has used these significant words, among others: 'Why should an aggressive and insolent faction be allowed to make the heart of the just sad, whom the Lord hath not made sor-rowful?'


I take next my second proposition: that Rome has re-furbished and paraded anew every rusty tool she was fondly thought to have disused.

Is this, then, a fact, or is it not?

I must assume that it is denied; and therefore I can not wholly pass by the work of proof. But I will state, in the fewest possible words and with references, a few propositions, all the holders of which have been condemned by the See of Rome during my own generation, and especially within the last twelve or fifteen years. And, in order that I may do nothing towards importing passion into what is matter of pure argument, I will avoid citing any of the fearfully ener-getic epithets in which the condemnations are sometimes clothed.

1. Those who maintain the liberty of the Press. Encyclical Letter of Pope Gregory XVI., in 1831; and of Pope Pius IX., in 1864.

2. Or the liberty of conscience and of worship. Encyclical of Pius IX., December 8, 1864.

3. Or the liberty of speech. 'Syllabus' of March 18, 1861. Prop, lxxix. Encyclical of Pope Pius IX., December 8, 1864.

4. Or who contend that Papal judgments and decrees may, without sin, be disobeyed or differed from, unless they treat of the rules (dogmata) of faith or morals. Ibid.

5. Or who assign to the State the power of defining the civil rights (jura) and province of the Church. 'Syllabus' of Pope Pius IX., March 8, 1861. Ibid. Prop. xix.

6. Or who hold that Roman Pontiffs and OEcumenical Councils have transgressed the limits of their power, and usurped the rights of princes. Ibid. Prop, xxiii.


(It must be borne in mind that '(Ecumenical Councils' here mean Roman Councils not recognized by the rest of the Church. The Councils of the early Church did not interfere with the jurisdiction of the civil power.)

1. Or that the Church may not employ force. (Ecclesia vis inferendoe potestatem non habet.) 'Syllabus.' Prop. xxiv.

2. Or that power, not inherent in the office of the Episco-pate, but granted to it by the civil authority, may be withdrawn from it at the discretion of that authority. Ibid. Prop. xxv.

3. Or that the (immunitas) civil immunity of the Church and its ministers depends upon civil right. Ibid. Prop. xxx.

4. Or that in the. conflict of laws, civil and ecclesiastical, the civil law should prevail. Ibid. Prop. xlii.

5. Or that any method of instruction of youth, solely secular, may be approved. Ibid. Prop, xlviii.

6. Or that knowledge of things philosophical and civil mayandshoulddecline tobe guidedbydivine and ecclesiastical authority. Ibid. Prop. lvii.

7. Or that marriage is not in its essence a sacrament. Ibid. Prop. lvvi.

8. Or that marriage not sacramentally contracted (si sacramentum excludatur) has a binding force. Ibid. Prop,


1. Or that the abolition of the temporal power of the Popedom would be highly advantageous to the Church. Ibid. Prop, lxxvi. Also Prop. lxx.

2. Or that any other religion than the Roman religion may be established by a State. Ibid. Prop, lxxvii.

3. Or that in 'countries called Catholic' the free exercise of other religions may laudably be allowed. 'Syllabus.' Prop,


18. Or that the Roman Pontiff ought to come to terms with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization. Ibid. Prop. lxxx.

This list is now, perhaps, sufficiently extended, although I have as yet not touched the decrees of 1870. But, before quitting it, I must offer three observations on what it contains.

Firstly. I do not place all the propositions in one and the same category; for there are a portion of them which, as far as I can judge, might, by the combined aid of favorable con-struction and vigorous explanation, be brought within bounds. And I hold that favorable construction of the terms used in controversies is the right general rule. But this can only be so when construction is an open question. When the author of certain propositions claims, as in the case before us, a sole and unlimited power to interpret them in such manner and by such rules as he may from time to time think fit, the only defense, for all others concerned is at once to judge for themselves how much of unreason or of mischief the words, naturally understood, may contain.

Secondly. It may appear, upon a hasty perusal, that neither the infliction of penalty in life, limb, liberty, or gods, on dis-obedient members of the Christian Church, nor the title to depose sovereigns and release subjects from their allegiance, with all its revolting consequences, has been here reaffirmed. In terms, there is no mention of them; but in the substance of the propositions, I grieve to say, they are beyond doubt included. For it is notorious that they have been declared and decreed by 'Rome'-that is to say, by Popes and Papal Councils; and the stringent condemnations of the Syllabus include all those who hold that Popes and Papal Councils (declared oecumenical) have transgressed the just limits of their power, or usurped the rights of princes. What have been their opinions and decrees about persecution I need hardly say, and indeed the right to employ physical force is even here undisguisedly claimed (No. 7).


Even while I am writing, I am reminded, from an un-questionable source, of the words of Pope Pius IX. himself on the deposing power. I add only a few italics; the words appear as given in a translation, without the original:

'The present Pontiff used these words in replying to the address from the "Academia of the Catholic Religion" (July 21, 1873):

' "There are many errors regarding the Infallibility; but the most malicious of all is that which includes, in that dogma, the right of deposing sovereigns, and declaring the people no longer bound by the obligation of fidelity. This right has now and again, in critical circumstances, been exercised by the Pontiffs; but it has nothing to do with Papal Infallibility. Its origin was not the infallibility, but the authority of the Pope. This authority, in accordance with public right, which was then vigorous, and with the acquiescence of all Christian nations, who reverenced in the Pope the supreme Judge of the Christian Commonwealth, extended so far as to pass judgment, even in civil affairs, on the acts of Princes and of Nations." '

Lastly. I must observe that these are not mere opinions of the Pope himself, nor even are they opinions which he might paternally recommend to the pious consideration of the faithful. With the promulgation of his opinions is un-happily combined, in the Encyclical Letter, which virtually, though not expressly, includes the whole, a command to all his spiritual children (from which command we the dis-obedient children are in no way excluded) to hold them.

'Itaque omnes et singulas pravas opiniones et doctrinas singillatim hisce literis commemoratas auctoritate nostra Apostolica reprobamus, proscribimus, atque, damnamus; easque ab omnibus Catholicae Ec-clesia; filiis veluti reprobatas, proscriptas, atque damnatas omnino haberni volumnus et mandamus.'-Encycl., Dec. 8, 1864.

And the decrees of 1870 will presently show us what they establish as the binding force of the mandate thus conveyed to the Christian world.


I now pass to the operation of these extraordinary declara-tions on personal or private duty.

When the cup of endurance, which had so long been filling, began, with the Council of the Vatican in 1870, to overflow, the most famous and learned living theologian of the Roman communion, Dr. von Dollinger, long the foremost champion of his Church, refused compliance, and submitted, with his temper undisturbed and his freedom unimpaired, to the extreme and most painful penalty of excommunication. With him many of the most learned and respected theologians of the Roman communion in Germany underwent the same sentence. The very few who elsewhere (I do not speak of Switzerland) suffered in like manner deserve an admiration rising in proportion to their fewness. It seems as though Germany, from which Luther blew the mighty trumpet that even now echoes .through the land, still retained her primacy in the domain of conscience, still supplied the centuria prarog-ativa of the great comitia of the world.

But let no man wonder or complain. Without imputing to any one the moral murder-for such it is-of stifling con-science and conviction, I for one can not be surprised that the fermentation which is working through the mind of the Latin Church has as yet (elsewhere than in Germany) but in few instances come to the surface. By the mass of mankind it is morally impossible that questions such as these can be ade-quately examined; so it ever has been, and so in the main it will continue, until the principles of manufacturing machinery shall have been applied, and with analogous results, to in-tellectual and moral processes. Followers they are and must be, and in a certain sense ought to be. But what as to the leaders of society, the men of education and of leisure? I will try to suggest some answer in few words. A change of religious profession is under all circumstances a great and awful thing. Much more is the question, however, between conflicting or apparently conflicting duties arduous when the religion of a man has been changed for him, over his head, and without the very least of his participation. Far be it, then, from me to make any Roman Catholic, except the great hierarchic Power, and those who have egged it on, responsible for the portentous proceedings which we have witnessed. My


conviction is that, even of those who may not shake off the yoke, multitudes will vindicate at any rate their loyalty at the expense of the consistency, which perhaps in difficult matters of religion few among us perfectly maintain. But this belongs to the future; for the present, nothing could in my opinion be most unjust than to hold the members of the Roman Church in general already responsible for the recent innovations. The duty of observers, who think the claims involved in these decrees arrogant and false, and such as not even impotence, real or supposed, ought to shield from criti-cism, is frankly to state the case, and, by way of friendly chal-lenge, to entreat their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen to replace themselves in the position which five-and-forty years ago this nation, by the voice and action of its Parliament, declared its belief that they held.

Upon a strict re-examination of the language as apart from the substance of my fourth proposition, I find it faulty, inasmuch as it seems to imply that a 'convert' now joining the Papal Church not only gives up certain rights and duties of freedom, but surrenders them by a conscious and deliberate act. What I have less accurately said that he renounced, I might have more accurately said that he forfeited. To speak strictly, the claim now made upon him by the authority which he solemnly and with the highest responsibility acknowl-edges requires him to surrender his mental and moral free-dom, and to place his loyalty and civil duty at the mercy of another. There may have been, and may be, persons who in their sanguine trust will not shrink from this result, and will console themselves with the notion that their loyalty and civil duty are to be committed to the custody of one much wiser than themselves. But I am sure that there are also 'converts' who, when they perceive, will by word and act reject the consequence which relentless logic draws for them. If, however, my proposition be true, there is no escape from the dilemma. Is it, then, true, or is it not true, that Rome requires a convert who now joins her to forfeit his moral and mental freedom, and to place his loyalty and civil duty at the mercy of another?

In order to place this matter in as clear a light as I can, it will be necessary to go back a little upon our recent history.

A century ago we began to relax that system of penal laws against Roman Catholics, at once pettifogging, base, and cruel, which Mr. Burke has scathed and blasted with his im-mortal eloquence.

When this process had reached the point at which the question was whether they should be admitted into Parlia-ment, there arose a great and prolonged national controversy; and some men, who at no time of their lives were narrow-minded, such as Sir Robert Peel, the Minister, resisted the concession. The arguments in its favor were obvious and strong, and they ultimately prevailed. But the strength of the opposing party had lain in the allegation that, from the nature and claims of the Papal power, it was not possible for the consistent Roman Catholic to pay to the Crown of this country an entire allegiance, and that the admission of persons; thus self-disabled to Parliament was inconsistent with the safety of the State and nation, which had not very long be-fore, it may be observed, emerged from a struggle for existence.

An answer to this argument was indispensable; and it was supplied mainly from two sources. The Josephine laws, then still subsisting in the Austrian Empire, and the arrange-ments which had been made after the peace of 1815 by Prussia and the German States with Pius VII. and Gonsalvi, proved that the Papal Court could submit to circumstances, and could allow material restraints even upon the exercise of its ecclesiastical prerogatives. Here, then, was a reply in the sense of the phrase solvitur ambulando. Much information of this class was collected for the information of Parliament and the country. But there were also measures taken to learn, from the highest Roman Catholic authorities of this country, what was the exact situation of the members of that com-


munion with respect to some of the better known exorbitances of Papal assumption. Did the Pope claim any temporal jurisdiction? Did he still pretend to the exercise of a power to depose kings, release subjects from their allegiance, and incite them to revolt? Was faith to be kept with heretics? Did the Church still teach the doctrines of persecution? Now, to no one of these questions could the answer really be of the smallest immediate moment to this powerful and solidly com-pacted kingdom. They were topics selected by way of sample; and the intention was to elicit declarations showing generally that the fangs of the mediaeval Popedom had been drawn, and its claws torn away; that the Roman system, how-ever strict in its dogma, was perfectly compatible with civil

liberty, and with the institutions of a free State moulded on a different religious basis from its own.

Answers in abundance were obtained, tending to show that the doctrines of deposition and persecution, of keeping no faith with heretics, and of universal dominion, were ob-solete beyond revival; that every assurance could be given respecting them, except such as required the shame of a formal retractation; that they were in effect mere bugbears, unworthy to be taken into account by a nation which prided itself on being made up of practical men.

But it was unquestionably felt that something more than the renunciation of these particular opinions was necessary in order to secure the full concession of civil rights to Roman Catholics. As to their individual loyalty, a State disposed to generous or candid interpretation had no reason to be uneasy. It was only with regard to requisitions which might be made on them from another quarter that apprehension could exist. It was reasonable that England should desire to know not only what the Pope might do for himself, but to what de-mands, by the Constitution of their Church, they were liable; and how far it was possible that such demands could touch their civil duty. The theory which placed every human being, in things spiritual and things temporal, at the feet of the Roman Pontiff had not been an idolum specus, amere theory of the chamber. Brain power never surpassed in the political history of the world had been devoted for centuries to the single purpose of working it into the practice of Christen-dom; had in the West achieved for an impossible problem a partial success; and had in the East punished the obstinate independence of the Church by that Latin conquest of Con-stantinople which effectually prepared the way for the down-fall of the Eastern Empire and the establishment of the Turks in Europe. What was really material therefore was, not whether the Papal Chair laid claim to this or that particu-lar power, but whether it laid claim to some power that in-cluded them all, and whether they claim had received such sanction from the authorities of the Latin Church that there remained within her borders absolutely no tenable standing-ground from which war against it could be maintained. Did the Pope, then, claim infallibility? Or did he, either without infallibility or with it (and if with it so much the worse), claim a universal obedience from his flock? And were these claims, either or both, affirmed in his Church by authority which even the least Papal of the members of that Church must admit to be binding upon conscience?

The first two of these questions were covered by the third; and well it was that they were so covered, for to them no satisfactory answer could even then be given. The Popes had kept up, with comparatively little intermission, for well-nigh a thousand years their claim to dogmatic infallibility; and had, at periods within the same tract of time, often enough made, and never retracted, that other claim which is theoretically less but practically larger-their claim to an obedience virtually universal from the baptized members of the Church. To the third question it was fortunately more practicable to prescribe a satisfactory reply. It was well known that, in the days of its glory and intellectual power, the great Gallican Church had not only not admitted, but had denied


Papal infallibility, and had declared that the local laws and usages of the Church could not be set aside by the will of the Pontiff. Nay, further, it was believed that in the main these had been, down to the close of the last century, the prevailing opinions of the Cisalpine Churches in communion with Rome. The Council of Constance had in act as well as word shown that the Pope's judgments, and the Pope himself, were triable by the assembled representatives of the Christian world. And the Council of Trent, notwithstanding the predominance in it of Italian and Roman influences, if it had not denied, yet had not affirmed either proposition.

All that remained was to know what were the sentiments entertained on these vital points by the leaders and guides of Roman Catholic opinion nearest to our own doors. And here testimony was offered which must not and can not be forgotten. In part, this was the testimony of witnesses before the Committee of the House of Lords in 1825. I need quote two answers only, given by the Prelate who more than any other represented his Church, and influenced the mind of this country in favor of concession at the time, namely, Bishop Doyle. He was asked:

'In what, and how far, does the Roman Catholic profess to obey the Pope?'

He replied:

'The Catholic professes to obey the Pope in matters which regard his religious faith, and in those matters of ecclesiastical discipline which have already been defined by the competent authorities.'

And again: 'Does that justify the objection that is made to Catholics that their allegiance is divided?' 'I do not think it does in any way. We are bound to obey the Pope in those things that I have already mentioned. But our obedience to the law, and the allegiance which we owe the Sovereign, are com-plete, and full, and perfect, and undivided, inasmuch as they extend to all political, legal, and civil rights of the King or of his subjects. I think the allegiance due to the King and the allegiance due to the

Pope are as distinct and as divided in their nature as any two things can possibly be.'

Such is the opinion of the dead Prelate. We shall presently hear the opinion of a living one. But the sentiments of the dead man powerfully operated on the open and trustful temper of this people to induce them to grant, at the cost of so much popular feeling and national tradition, the great and just con-cession of 1829. That concession, without such declarations, it would, to say the least, have been far more difficult to obtain.

Now, bodies are usually held to be bound by the evidence of their own selected and typical witnesses. But in this instance the colleagues of those witnesses thought fit also to speak collectively.

First let us quote from the collective 'Declaration,' in the year 1826, of the Vicars Apostolic, who, with Episcopal authority, governed the Roman Catholics of Great Britain:

'The allegiance which Catholics hold to be due, and are hound to pay, to their Sovereign, and to the civil authority of the State, is perfect and undivided. . . .

'They declare that neither the Pope, nor any other Prelate or ecclesiastical person of the Roman Catholic Church......................... has any right to interfere, directly or indirectly, in the civil government, ....nor to oppose in any manner the performance of the civil duties which are due to the King.'

Not less explicit was the Hierarchy of the Roman com-munion in its 'Pastoral Address to the Clergy and Laity of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland,' dated January 25, 1826. This address contains a declaration, from which I extract the following words:

'It is a duty which they owe to themselves, as well as to their Protestant fellow-subjects, whose good opinion they value, to endeavor once more to remove the false imputations that have been frequently cast upon the faith and discipline of that Church which is intrusted to their care, that all may be enabled to know with accuracy their genuine principles.'

In Article 11:


'They declareonoath their belief that it isnot an article of the Catholic Faith, neither are they required to believe, that the Pope is infallible.'

And, after various recitals, they set forth:

'After this full, explicit, and sworn declaration, we are utterly at a loss to conceive on what possible ground we could be justly charged with bearing toward our most gracious Sovereign only a divided allegiance.'

Thus, besides much else that I will not stop to quote, Papal infallibility was most solemnly declared to be a matter oil which each man might think as he pleased; the Pope's power to claim obedience was strictly and narrowly limited: it was expressly denied that he had any title, direct or indirect, to interfere in civil government. Of the right of the Pope to define the limits which divide the civil from the spiritual by his own authority, not one word is said by the Prelates of either country.

Since that time all these propositions have been reversed. The Pope's infallibility, when he speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals, has been declared, with the assent of the Bishops of the Roman Church, to be an article of faith, binding on the conscience of every Christian; his claim to the obedience of his spiritual subjects has been declared in like manner with-out any practical limit or reserve; and his supremacy, without any reserve of civil rights, has been similarly affirmed to in-clude every thing which relates to the discipline and govern-ment of the Church throughout the world. And these doc-trines, we now know on the highest authority, it is of neces-sity for salvation to believe.

Independently, however, of the Vatican Decrees them-selves, it is necessary for all who wish to understand what has been the amount of the wonderful change now consummated in the Constitution of the Latin Church, and what is the present degradation of its Episcopal order, to observe also the change, amounting to revolution, of form in the present, as compared with other conciliatory decrees. Indeed, that spirit of centralization, the excesses of which are as fatal to vigorous life in the Church as in the State, seems now nearly to have reached the last and furthest point of possible advancement and exaltation.

When, in fact, we speak of the decrees of the Council of the Vatican, we use a phrase which will not bear strict ex-amination. The Canons of the Council of Trent were, at least, the real Canons of a real Council; and the strain in which they are promulgated is this: Hoec Saccrosancta, ecumenica, et generalis Tridentina Synodus, in Spiritu Sancto legitime con-gregata, in ea praesidentibus eisdem tribus apostolicis Legatis, hortatur, or docet, or statuit, or decernit, and the like; and its canons, as published in Rome, are 'Canones et decreta Sacro-sancti ecumenici Concilii Tridentini', and so forth. But what we have now to do with is the Constitutio Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia Christi, edita in Sessione tertia of the Vatican Council. It is not a constitution made by the Council, but one promulgated in the Council. And who is it that legislates and decrees? It is Pius Episcopus, servus servorum Dei: and the seductive plural of his docemus et declaramus is simply the dignified and ceremonious 'We' of Royal declarations. The document is dated Pontificates nostri Anno XXV.: and the humble share of the assembled Episcopate in the transaction is represented by sacro approbante concilio. And now for the Propositions themselves.

First comes the Pope's infallibility:

'Docemus, et divinitus revelatum dogma esse definimus, Romanum Pontificem, cum ex Cathedra loquitur, id est cum, omnium Christi-anorum Pastoris et Doctoris munere fungens, pro supremo, sua Apostolica auctoritate doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universa Ecclesia tenendam definit, per assistentiam divinam, ipsi in Beato Petro promissam, ea infallibilitate pollere, qua Divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit: ideoque ejus Romani Pontificis definitiones ex sese non auteni ex consensu Ecclesiae irreformabiles esse.'

Will it, then, be said that the infallibility of the Pope accrues only when he speaks ex cathedra? No doubt this is a very material consideration for those who have been told that the private conscience is to derive comfort and assurance from the emanations of the Papal Chair: for there is no estab-lished or accepted definition of the phrase ex cathedra, and he has no power to obtain one, and no guide to direct him in his choice among some twelve theories on the subject, which, it is said, are bandied to and fro among Roman theologians, except the despised and discarded agency of his private judg-ment. But while thus sorely tantalized, he is not one whit protected. For there is still one person, and one only, who can unquestionably declare ex cathedra what is ex cathedra and what is not, and who can declare it when and as he pleases. That person is the Pope himself. The provision is, that no document he issues shall be valid without a seal; but the seal remains under his own sole lock and key.

Again, it may be sought to plead that the Pope is, after all, only operating by sanctions which unquestionably belong to the religious domain. He does not propose to invade the country, to seize Woolwich or burn Portsmouth. He will only, at the worst, excommunicate opponents, as he has excom-municated Dr. von Dollinger and others. Is this a good answer? After all, even in the Middle Ages, it was not by the direct action of fleets and armies of their own that the Popes contended with kings who were refractory; it was mainly by interdicts, and by the refusal, which they entailed when the Bishops were not brave enough to refuse their publi-cation, of religious offices to the people. It was thus that England suffered under John, France under Philip Augustus, Leon under Alphonso the Noble, and every country in its turn. But the inference may be drawn that they who, while using spiritual weapons for such an end, do not employ temporal means, only fail to employ them because they have them not. A religious society which delivers volleys of spiritual censure in order to impede the performance of civil duties does all the mischief that is in its power to do, and brings into question, in face of the State, its title to civil protection.

Will it be said, finally, that the Infallibility touches only matter of faith and morals? Only matters of morals! Will any of the Roman casuists kindly acquaint us what are the departments and functions of human life which do not and can not fall within the domain of morals? If they will not tell us, we must look elsewhere. In his work entitled Literature and Dogma, Mr. Matthew Arnold quaintly informs us-as they tell us nowadays how many parts of our poor bodies are solid and how many aqueous-that about seventy-five per cent, of all we do belongs to the department of 'conduct.' Conduct and morals, we may suppose, are nearly co-extensive Three fourths, then, of life are thus handed over. But who will guarantee to us the other fourth? Certainly not St. Paul, who says, 'Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.' And, 'Whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.' No! Such a distinction would be the unworthy device of a shallow policy, vainly used to hide the daring of that wild ambition which at Rome, not from the throne, but from behind the throne, prompts the movements of the Vatican. I care not to ask if there be dregs or tatters of human life, such as can escape from the description and boundary of morals. I sub-mit that Duty is a power which rises with us in the morning, and goes to rest with us at night. It is co-extensive with the action of our intelligence. It is the shadow which cleaves to us go where we will, and which only leaves us when we leave the light of life. So, then, it is the supreme direction of us in respect to all Duty which the Pontiff declares to belong to him sacro approbante concilio; and this declaration he makes, not as an otiose opinion of the schools, but cunctis fidelibus credendam et tenendam.

But we shall now see that, even if a loophole had at this point been left unclosed, the void is supplied by another pro-vision of the Decrees. While the reach of the Infallibility is as wide as it may please the Pope, or those who may prompt the Pope, to make it, there is something wider still, and that


is the claim to an absolute and entire Obedience. This Obedi-ence is to be rendered to his orders in the cases I shall proceed to point out, without any qualifying condition, such as the ex cathedra. The sounding name of Infallibility has so fasci-nated the public mind, and riveted it on the Fourth Chapter of the Constitution de Ecclesia, that its near neighbor, the Third Chapter, has, at least in my opinion, received very much less than justice. Let us turn to it:

'Cujuscunque ritus et dignitatis pastores atque fideles, tam seor-sum singuli quam simul omnes, officio hierachicae subordinations veraeque obedientiae obstringuntur, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, set etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusa? pertinent. . . . Haec est Catholics veritatis doc-trina,a qua deviare,salva,fide atque salute, nemo potest....

'Docemus etiam et declaramus eum esse judicem supremum fi-

delium, et in omnibus causis ad examen ecclesiasticum spectantibus

ad ipsius posse judicium recurri: Sedis vero Apostolicae, cujus auc-

toritate major non est, judicium a nemine fore retractandum. Neque

cuiquam de ejus licere judicare judicio.'

Even, therefore, where the judgments of the Pope do not present the credentials of Infallibility, they are unappealable and irreversible: no person may pass judgment upon them; and all men, clerical and lay, dispersedly or in the aggregate, are bound truly to obey them; and from this rule of Catholic truth no man can depart, save at the peril of his salvation. Surely, it is allowable to say that this Third Chapter on uni-versal Obedience is a formidable rival to the Fourth Chapter on Infallibility. Indeed, to an observer from without, it seems to leave the dignity to the other, but to reserve the stringency and efficiency to itself. The Third Chapter is the Merovingian Monarch; the Fourth is the Carolingian Mayor of the Palace. The Third has an overawing splendor; the Fourth, an iron grip. Little does it matter to me whether my superior claims infallibility, so long as he is entitled to demand and exact conformity. This, it will be observed, he demands even in cases not covered by his infallibility; cases, therefore, in which he admits it to be possible that he may be wrong, but finds it intolerable to be told so. As he must be obeyed in all his

judgments, though not ex cathedra, it seems a pity he could not likewise give the comforting assurance that they are all certain to be right.

But why this ostensible reduplication-this apparent sur-plusage? Why did the astute contrivers of this tangled scheme conclude that they could not afford to rest content with pledging the Council to Infallibility in terms which are not only wide to a high degree, but elastic beyond all measure?

Though they must have known perfectly well that 'faith and morals' carried every thing, or every thing worth having, in the purely individual sphere, they also knew just as well that, even where the individual was subjugated, they might and would still have to deal with the State.

In mediaeval history, this distinction is not only clear, but glaring. Outside the borders of some narrow and proscribed sect, now and then emerging, we never, or scarcely ever, hear of private and personal resistance to the Pope. The manful 'Protestantism' of mediaeval times had its activity al-most entirely in the sphere of public, national, and State rights. Too much attention, in my opinion, can not be fastened on this point. It is the very root and kernel of the matter. In-dividual servitude, however abject, will not satisfy the party now dominant in the Latin Church: the State must also be a slave.

Our Saviour had recognized as distinct the two provinces of the civil rule and the Church; had nowhere intimated that the spiritual authority was to claim the disposal of physical force, and to control in its own domain the authority which is alone responsible for external peace, order, and safety among civilized communities of men. It has been alike the peculiarity, the pride, and the misfortune of the Roman Church, among Christian communities, to allow to itself an unbounded use, as far as its power would go, of earthly instru-ments for spiritual ends. We have seen with what ample assurances this nation and Parliament were fed in 1826; how


well and roundly the full and undivided rights of the civil power, and the separation of the two jurisdictions, were af-firmed. All this had at length been undone, as far as Popes could undo it, in the Syllabus and the Encyclical. It remained to complete the undoing through the subserviency or pliability of the Council.

And the work is now truly complete. Let it should be said that supremacy in faith and morals, full dominion over personal belief and conduct, did not cover the collective action of men in States, a third province was opened, not indeed to the abstract assertion of Infallibility, but to the far more practical and decisive demand of absolute Obedience. And this is the proper work of the Third Chapter, to which I am endeavoring to do a tardy justice. Let us listen again to its few but pregnant words on the point:

'Non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quaead disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent.'

Absolute obedience, it is boldly declared, is due to the Pope, at the peril of salvation, not alone in faith, in morals, but in all things which concern the discipline and government of the Church. Thus are swept into the Papal net whole multitudes of facts, whole systems of government, prevailing, though in different degrees, in every country of the world. Even in the United States, where the severance between Church and State is supposed to be complete, a long catalogue might be drawn of subjects belonging to the domain and com-petency of the State, but also undeniably affecting the govern-ment of the Church; such as, by way of example, marriage, burial, education, prison discipline, blasphemy, poor-relief, incorporation, mortmain, religious endowments, vows of celi-bacy, and obedience. In Europe the circle is far wider, the points of contact and of interlacing almost innumerable. But on all matters respecting which any Pope may think proper to declare that they concern either faith or morals, or the government or discipline of the Church, he claims, with the approval of a Council undoubtedly OEcumenical in the Roman

sense, the absolute obedience, at the peril of salvation, of every member of his communion.

It seems not as yet to have been thought wise to pledge the Council in terms to the Syllabus and the Encyclical. That achievement is probably reserved for some one of its sittings yet to come. In the meantime it is well to remember that this claim in respect of all things affecting the discipline and government of the Church, as well as faith and conduct, is lodged in open day by and in the reign of a Pontiff who has condemned free speech, free writing, a free press, toleration of nonconformity, liberty of conscience, the study of civil and philosophical matters in independence of the ecclesiastical authority, marriage unless sacramentally contracted, and the definition by the State of the civil rights (jura) of the Church; who has demanded for the Church, therefore, the title to de-fine its own civil rights, together with a divine right to civil immunities, and a right to use physical force; and who has also proudly asserted that the Popes of the Middle Ages with their Councils did not invade the rights of princes: as for ex-ample, Gregory VII., of the Emperor Henry IV.; Innocent III., of Raymond of Toulouse; Paul III., in depositing Henry VIII.; or Pius V., in performing the like paternal office for Elizabeth.

I submit, then, that my fourth proposition is true; and that England is entitled to ask, and to know, in what way the obedience required by the Pope and the Council of the Vatican is to be reconciled with the integrity of civil allegiance?

It has been shown that the Head of their Church, so sup-ported as undoubtedly to speak with its highest authority, claims from Roman Catholics a plenary obedience to what-ever he may desire in relation, not to faith, but to morals, and not only to these, but to all that concerns the government and discipline of the Church: that, of this, much lies within the domain of the State; that, to obviate all misapprehension, the Pope demands for himself the right to determine the province of his own rights, and has so defined it in formal documents as to warrant any and every invasion of the civil sphere; and that this new version of the principles of the Papal Church inexorably binds its members to the admission of these exorbitant claims, without any refuge or reservation on behalf of their duty to the Crown.

Under circumstances such as these, it seems not too much to ask of them to confirm the opinion which we, as fellow-countrymen, entertain of them, by sweeping away, in such manner and terms as they may think best, the presumptive imputations which their ecclesiastical rulers at Rome, acting autocratically, appear to have brought upon their capacity to pay a solid and undivided allegiance; and to fulfill the en-gagement which their Bishops, as political sponsors, promised and declared for them in 1825.

It would be impertinent, as well as needless, to suggest what should be said. All that is requisite is to indicate in substance that which (if the foregoing argument be sound) is not wanted, and that which is. What is not wanted is vague and general assertion, of whatever kind, and however sincere. What is wanted, and that in the most specific form and the clearest terms, I take to be one of two things-that is to say, either:

I. A demonstration that neither in the name of faith, nor in the name of morals, nor in the name of the government or discipline of the Church, is the Pope of Rome able, by virtue of the powers asserted for him by the Vatican Decree, to make any claim upon those who adhere to his communion of such a nature as can impair the integrity of their civil allegiance; or else,

II. That, if and when such claim is made, it will, even although resting on the definitions of the Vatican, be repelled and rejected, just as Bishop Doyle, when he was asked what the Roman Catholic clergy would do if the Pope intermeddled with their religion, replied frankly: 'The consequences would be that we should oppose him by every means in our power, even by the exercise of our spiritual authority.'

In the absence of explicit assurances to this effect, we should appear to be led, nay, driven, by just reasoning upon that documentary evidence, to the conclusions:

1. That the Pope, authorized by his Council, claims for himself the domain (a) of faith, (b) of morals, (c) of all that concerns the government and discipline of the Church.

2. That he in like manner claims the power of determining the limits of those domains.

3. That he does not sever them, by any acknowledged or intelligible line, from the domains of civil duty and allegiance.

4. That he therefore claims, and claims from the month of July, 1870, onward, with plenary authority, from every convert and member of his Church, that he shall 'place his loyalty and civil duty at the mercy of another:' that other being himself.


But next, if these propositions be true, are they also ma-terial? The claims can not, as I much fear, be denied to have been made. It can not be denied that the Bishops, who govern in things spiritual more than five millions (or nearly one sixth) of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom, have in some cases promoted, in all cases accepted, these claims. It has been a favorite purpose of my life not to conjure up, but to conjure down, public alarms. I am not now going to pre-tend that either foreign foe or domestic treason can, at the bidding of the Court of Rome, disturb these peaceful shores. But though such fears may be visionary, it is more visionary still to suppose for one moment that the claims of Gregory VII., of Innocent III., and of Boniface VIII., have been disinterred, in the nineteenth century, like hideous mummies picked out of Egyptian sarcophagi, in the interests of archaeology, or with-out a definite and practical aim. As rational beings, we must rest assured that only with a very clearly conceived and fore-gone purpose have these astonishing reassertions been paraded before the world. What is that purpose?

I can well believe that it is in part theological. There have always been, and there still are, no small proportion of our race, and those by no means in all respects the worst, who are sorely open to the temptation, especially in times of re-ligious disturbance, to discharge their spiritual responsibilities by power of attorney. As advertising houses find custom in proportion, not so much to the solidity of their resources as to the magniloquence of their promises and assurances, so theological boldness in the extension of such claims is sure to pay, by widening certain circles of devoted adherents, how-ever it may repel the mass of mankind. There were two special encouragements to this enterprise at the present day: one of them the perhaps unconscious but manifest leaning of some, outside the Roman precinct, to undue exaltation of Church power; the other the reaction which is and must be brought about in favor of superstition, by the levity of the destructive speculations so widely current, and the notable hardihood of the anti-Christian writing of the day.

But it is impossible to account sufficiently in this manner for the particular course which has been actually pursued by the Roman Court. All morbid spiritual appetites would have been amply satisfied by claims to infallibility in creed, to the prerogative of miracle, to dominion over the unseen world. In truth there was occasion, in this view, for nothing except a liberal supply of Salmonean thunder:

'Dum flammas Jovis, et sonitus imitatur Olympi.'

All this could have been managed by a few Tetzels, judiciously distributed over Europe. Therefore the question still remains, Why did that Court, with policy forever in its eye, lodge such formidable demands for power of the vulgar kind in that sphere which is visible, and where hard knocks can undoubted-ly be given as well as received?

It must be for some political object, of a very tangible kind, that the risks of so daring a raid upon the civil sphere have been deliberately run.

A daring raid it is. For it is most evident that the very assertion of principles which establish an exemption from allegiance, or which impair its completeness, goes, in many other countries of Europe far more directly than with us, to the creation of political strife, and to dangers of the most material and tangible kind. The struggle now proceeding in Germany at once occurs to the mind as a palmary instance. I am not competent to give any opinion upon the particulars of that struggle. The institutions of Germany, and the relative estimate of State power and individual freedom, are materially different from ours. But I must say as much as this. Firstly, it is not Prussia alone that is touched; else-where, too, the bone lies ready, though the contention may be delayed. In other States, in Austria particularly, there are recent laws in force raising much the same issues as the Falck laws have raised. But the Roman Court possesses in perfection one art-the art of waiting; and it is her wise maxim to fight but one enemy at a time. Secondly, if I have truly represented the claims promulgated from the Vatican, it is difficult to deny that those claims, and the power which has made them, are primarily responsible for the pains and perils, whatever they may be, of the present conflict between German and Roman enactments. And that which was once truly said of France may now also be said with not less truth of Germany: when Germany is disquieted, Europe can not be at rest.

I should feel less anxiety on this subject had the Supreme Pontiff frankly recognized his altered position since the events of 1870; and, in language as clear, if not as emphatic, as that in which he has proscribed modern civilization, given to

Europe the assurance that he would be no party to the re-establishment by blood and violence of the Temporal Power of the Church. It is easy to conceive that his personal benev-olence, no less than his feelings as an Italian, must have in-clined him individually towards a course so humane-and I should add, if I might do it without presumption, so prudent. With what appears to an English eye a lavish prodigality, successive Italian Governments have made over the ecclesi-astical powers and privileges of the Monarchy, not to the Church of the country for the revival of the ancient, popular, and self-governing elements of its constitution, but to the Papal Chair for the establishment of ecclesiastical despotism and the suppression of the last vestiges of independence. This course, so difficult for a foreigner to appreciate, or even to justify, has been met, not by reciprocal conciliation, but by a constant fire of denunciations and complaints. When the tone of these denunciations and complaints is compared with the language of the authorized and favored Papal organs in the press, and of the Ultramontane party (now the sole legitimate party of the Latin Church) throughout Europe, it leads many to the painful and revolting conclusion that there is a fixed purpose among the secret inspirers of Roman policy to pursue, by the road of force, upon the arrival of any "favorable opportunity, the favorite project of re-erecting the terrestrial throne of the Popedom, even if it can only be re-erected on the ashes of the city, and amid the whitening bones of the people.

It is difficult to conceive or contemplate the effects of such an endeavor. But the existence at this day of the policy, even in bare idea, is itself a portentous evil. I do not hesitate to say that it is an incentive to general disturbance, a premium upon European wars. It is, in my opinion, not sanguine only, but almost ridiculous to imagine that such a project could eventually succeed; but it is difficult to overestimate the effect which it might produce in generating and exasperating strife. It might even, to some extent, disturb and paralyze the action of such Governments as might interpose for no separate pur-pose of their own, but only with a view to the maintenance or restoration of the general peace. If the baleful Power which is expressed by the phrase Curia Romana, and not at all adequately rendered in its historic force by the usual English equivalent 'Court of Rome,' really entertains the scheme, it doubtless counts on the support in every country of an organized and devoted party, which when it can com-mand the scales of political power will promote interference, and when it is in a minority will work for securing neutrality. As the peace of Europe may be in jeopardy, and as the duties even of England, as one (so to speak) of its constabulary authorities, might come to be in question, it would be most interesting to know the mental attitude of our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen in England and Ireland with reference to the subject; and it seems to be one on which we are entitled to solicit information.

For there can not be the smallest doubt that the temporal power of the Popedom comes within the true meaning of the words used at the Vatican to describe the subjects on which the Pope is authorized to claim under lawful sanctions, the obedience of the 'faithful.' It is even possible that we have here the key to the enlargement of the province of Obedience beyond the limits of Infallibility, and to the introduction of the remarkable phrase ad disciplinam el regimen Ecclesiae. No impartial person can deny that the question of the Tem-poral Power very evidently concerns the discipline and govern-ment of the Church-concerns it, and most mischievously as I should venture to think; but in the opinion, up to a late date, of many Roman Catholics, not only most beneficially, but even essentially. Let it be remembered that such a man as the late Count Montalembert, who in his general politics was of the Liberal party, did not scruple to hold that the mil-lions of Roman Catholics throughout the world were co-partners with the inhabitants of the States of the Church in regard to their civil government; and, as constituting the vast


majority, were of course entitled to override them. It was also rather commonly held, a quarter of a century ago, that the question of the States of the Church was one with which none but Roman Catholic Powers could have any thing to do. This doctrine, I must own, was to me at all times unin-telligible. It is now, to say the least, hopelessly and irre-coverably obsolete.

Archbishop Manning, who is the head of the Papal Church in England, and whose ecclesiastical tone is supposed to be in the closest accordance with that of his headquarters, has not thought it too much to say that the civil order of all Christendom is the offspring of the Temporal Power, and has the Temporal Power for its keystone; that on the destruc-tion of the Temporal Power 'the laws of nations would at once fall in ruins;' that (our old friend) the deposing Power 'taught subjects obedience and princes clemency.' Nay, this high authority has proceeded further, and has elevated the Temporal Power to the rank of necessary doctrine.

'The Catholic Church can not be silent-it can not hold its peace; it can not cease to preach the doctrines of Revelation, not only of the Trinity and of the Incarnation, but likewise of the Seven Sacra-ments, and of the Infallibility of the Church of God, and of the necessity of Unity, and of the Sovereignty, both spiritual and tem-poral, of the Holy See.'

I never, for my own part, heard that the work containing this remarkable passage was placed in the 'Index Prohibitorum Librorum.' On the contrary, its distinguished author was elevated, on the first opportunity, to the headship of the Roman Episcopacy in England, and to the guidance of the million or thereabouts of souls in its communion. And the more recent utterances of the oracle have not descended from the high level of those already cited. They have, indeed, the recommendation of a comment, not without fair claims to authority, on the recent declarations of the Pope and the Council, and of one which goes to prove how far I am from having exaggerated or strained in the foregoing pages the meaning of those declarations. Especially does this hold good on the one point, the most vital of the whole-the title to define the border-line of the two provinces, which the Archbishop not unfairly takes to be the true criterion of supremacy as between rival powers like the Church and the State.

'If, then, the civil power be not competent to decide the limits of the spiritual power, and if the spiritual power can define, with a di-vine certainty, its own limits, it is evidently supreme. Or, in other words, the spiritual power knows, with divine certainty, the limits of its own jurisdiction: and it knows, therefore, the limits and the com-petence of the civil power. It is thereby, in matters of religion and conscience, supreme. I do not see how this can be denied without denying Christianity. And if this be so, this is the doctrine of the Bull Unam Sanctam, and the Syllabus, and of the Vatican Council. It is, in fact, Ultramontanism, for this term means neither less nor more. The Church, therefore, is separate and supreme.

'Let us, then, ascertain somewhat further what is the meaning of supreme. Any power which is independent, and can alone fix the limits of its own jurisdiction, and can thereby fix the limits of all other jurisdictions, is, ipso facto, supreme. But the Church of Jesus Christ, within the sphere of revelation, of faith and morals, is all this, or is nothing, or worse than nothing, an imposture and a usurpa-tion-that is, it is Christ or Antichrist.'

But the whole pamphlet should be read by those who desire to know the true sense of the Papal declarations and Vatican Decrees, as they are understood by the most favored ecclesiastics; understood, I am bound to own, as far as I can see, in their natural, legitimate, and inevitable sense. Such readers will be assisted by the treatise in seeing clearly, and in admitting frankly that, whatever demands may hereafter, and in whatever circumstances, be made upon us, we shall be unable to advance with any fairness the plea that it has been done without due notice.

There are millions upon millions of the Protestants of this country who would agree with Archbishop Manning if he were simply telling us that divine truth is not to be sought from the lips of the State, nor to be sacrificed at it command. But those millions would tell him, in return, that the State,


as the power which is alone responsible for the external order of the world, can alone conclusively and finally be competent to determine what is to take place in the sphere of that ex-ternal order.

I have shown, then, that the Propositions, especially that which has been felt to be the chief one among them, being true, are also material; material to be generally known, and clearly understood, and well considered, on civil grounds; inasmuch as they invade, at a multitude of points, the civil sphere, and seem even to have no very remote or shadowy connection with the future peace and security of Christendom.



There remains yet before us only the shortest and least significant portion of the inquiry, namely, whether these things, being true, and being material to be said, were also proper to be said by me. I must ask pardon if a tone of egotism be detected in this necessarily subordinate portion of my remarks.

For thirty years, and in a great variety of circumstances, in office and as an independent Member of Parliament, in majorities and in small minorities, and during the larger portion of the time as the representative of a great constituency, mainly clerical, I have, with others, labored to maintain and extend the civil rights of my Roman Catholic fellow-country-men. The Liberal party of this country, with which I have been commonly associated, has suffered, and sometimes suf-fered heavily, in public favor and in influence, from the belief that it was too ardent in the pursuit of that policy; while at the same time it has always been in the worst odor with the Court of Rome, in consequence of its (I hope) unalterable attachment to Italian liberty and independence. I have sometimes been the spokesman of that party in recommenda-tions which have tended to foster, in fact, the imputation I have mentioned, though not to warrant it as matter of reason.

But it has existed in fact. So that while (as I think) general justice to society required that these things which I have now set forth should be written, special justice, as toward the party to which I am loyally attached, and which I may have had a share in thus placing at a disadvantage before our countrymen, made it, to say the least, becoming that I should not shrink from writing them.

In discharging that office, I have sought to perform the part, not of a theological partisan, but simply of a good citizen; of one hopeful that many of his Roman Catholic friends and fellow-countrymen, who are, to say the least of it, as good citizens as himself, may perceive that the case is not a frivolous case, but one that merits their attention.

I will next proceed to give the reason why, up to a recent date, I have thought it right in the main to leave to any others who might feel it the duty of dealing in detail with this question.

The great change which seems to me have been brought about in the position of Roman Catholic Christians as citizens reached its consummation and came into full operation in July, 1870, by the proceedings or so-called decrees of the Vatican Council.

Up to that time, opinion in the Roman Church on all matters involving civil liberty, though partially and some-times widely intimidated, was free wherever it was resolute. During the Middle Ages heresy was often extinguished in blood; but in every Cisalpine country a principle of liberty, to a great extent, held its own, and national life refused to be put down. Nay more, these precious and inestimable gifts had not infrequently for their champions a local prelacy and clergy. The Constitutions of Claredon, cursed from the Papal throne, were the work of the English Bishops. Stephen Langton, appointed directly, through an extraordinary stretch of power, by Innocent III., to the See of Canterbury, headed the Barons of England in extorting from the Papal minion


John, the worst and basest of all our sovereigns, that Magna Charta which the Pope at once visited with his anathemas. In the reign of Henry VIII., it was Tunstal, Bishop of Dur-ham, who first wrote against the Papal domination. Tunstal was followed by Gardiner; and even the recognition of the Royal Headship was voted by the clergy, not under Cranmer, but under his unsuspected predecessor Warham. Strong and domineering as was the high Papal party in those centuries, the resistance was manful. Thrice in history it seemed as if what we may call the Constitutional party in the Church was about to triumph: first, at the epoch of the Council of Con-stance; secondly, when the French Episcopate was in conflict with Pope Innocent XL; thirdly, when Clement XIV. leveled with the dust the deadliest foes that mental and moral liberty have ever known. But from July, 1870, this state of things has passed away, and the death-warrant of that Constitutional party has been signed, and sealed, and promulgated in form.

Before that time arrived, although I had used expressions sufficiently indicative as to the tendency of things in the great Latin Communion, yet I had for very many years felt it to be the first and paramount duty of the British Legislature, what-ever Rome might say or do, to give to Ireland all that justice could demand in regard to matters of conscience and of civil equality, and thus to set herself right in the opinion of the civilized world. So far from seeing, what some believed they saw. a spirit of unworthy compliance in such a course, it appeared to me the only one which suited either the dignity or the duty of my country. While this debt remained unpaid, both before and after 1870, I did not think it my province to open formally a line of argument on a question of prospective rather than immediate moment, which might have prejudiced the matter of duty lying nearest our hand, and morally injured Great Britain not less than Ireland, Churchmen and Non-conformists not less than adherents of the Papal Communion, by slackening the disposition to pay the debt of justice. When Parliament had passed the Church Act of 1869 and the Land Act of 1870, there remained only, under the great head of Imperial equity, one serious question to be dealt with-that of the higher Education. I consider that the Liberal majority in the House of Commons, and the Government to which I had the honor and satisfaction to belong, formally tendered payment in full of this portion of the debt by the Irish Uni-versity Bill of February, 1873. Some, indeed, think that it was overpaid: a question into which this is manifestly not the place to enter. But the Roman Catholic prelacy of Ireland thought fit to procure the rejection of that measure by the direct influence which they exercised over a certain number of Irish Members of Parliament, and by the temptation which they thus offered-the bid, in effect, which (to us a homely phrase) they made to attract the support of the Tory Opposi-tion. Their efforts were crowned with a complete success. From that time forward I have felt that the situation was changed, and that important matters would have to be cleared by suitable explanations. The debt to Ireland had been paid: a debt to the country at large had still to be disposed of, and this has come to be the duty of the hour. So long, indeed, as I continued to be Prime Minister, I should not have con-sidered a broad political discussion on a general question suitable to proceed from me; while neither I nor (I am certain) my colleagues would have been disposed to run the risk of stirring popular passions by a vulgar and unexplained appeal. But every difficulty arising from the necessary limitations of an official position has now been removed.


I could not, however, conclude these observations without anticipating and answering an inquiry they suggest. 'Are they, then,' it will be asked, 'a recantation and a regret? and what are they meant to recommend as the policy of the future? My reply shall be succinct and plain. Of what the Liberal party has accomplished, by word or deed, in establishing the full civil equality of Roman Catholics, I regret nothing, and I recant nothing.


It is certainly a political misfortune that, during the last thirty years, a Church so tainted in its views of civil obedience, and so unduly capable of changing its front and language after Emancipation from what it had been before-like an actor who has to perform several characters in one piece- should have acquired an extension of its hold upon the highest classes of this country. The conquests have been chiefly, as might have been expected, among women; but the number of male converts, or captives (as I might prefer to call them), has not been inconsiderable. There is no doubt that every one of these secessions is in the nature of a considerable moral and social severance. The breadth of this gap varies, according to varieties of individual character. But it is too commonly a wide one. Too commonly the spirit of the neophyte is expressed by the words which have become notori-ous: 'A Catholic first, an Englishman afterwards.' Words which properly convey no more than a truism; for every Christian must seek to place his religion even before his country in his inner heart. But very far from a truism in the sense in which we have been led to construe them. We take them to mean that the 'convert' intends, in case of any con-flict between the Queen and the Pope, to follow the Pope, and let the Queen shift for herself; which, happily, she can well do.

Usually, in this country, a movement in the highest class would raise a presumption of a similar movement in the mass. It is not so here. Rumors have gone about that the proportion of members of the Papal Church to the population has in-creased, especially in England. But these rumors would seem to be confuted by authentic figures. The Roman Catholic Marriages, which supply a competent test, and which were

4.89 per cent, of the whole in 1854, and 4.62 per cent, in 1859, were 4.09 per cent, in 1869, and 4.02 per cent, in 1871.

There is something at the least abnormal in such a partial growth, taking effect as it does among the wealthy and noble, while the people can not be charmed, by any incantation, into the Roman camp. The original Gospel was supposed to be meant especially for the poor; but the gospel of the nineteenth century from Rome courts another and less modest destina-tion. If the Pope does not control more souls among us, he certainly controls more acres.

The severance, however, of a certain number of lords of the soil from those who till it can be borne. And so I trust will in like manner be endured the new and very real 'ag-gression' of the principles promulgated by Papal authority, whether they are or are not loyally disclaimed. In this matter each man is his own judge and his own guide: I can speak for myself. I am no longer able to say, as I would have said before 1870, 'There is nothing in the necessary belief of the Roman Catholic which can appear to impeach his full civil title; for, whatsoever be the follies of ecclesiastical power in his Church, his Church itself has not required of him, with binding authority, to assent to any principles inconsistent with his civil duty.' That ground is now, for the present at least, cut from under my feet. What, then, is to be our course of policy hereafter? First, let me say that, as regards the great Imperial settlement, achieved by slow degrees, which has admitted men of all creeds subsisting among us to Parliament, that I conceive to be so determined beyond all doubt or ques-tion as to have become one of the deep foundation-stones of the existing Constitution. But inasmuch as, short of this great charter of public liberty, and independently of all that has been done, there are pending matters of comparatively minor moment which have been, or may be, subjects of dis-cussion, not without interest attaching to them, I can suppose a question to arise in the minds of some. My own views and intentions in the future are of the smallest significance. But, if the arguments I have here offered make it my duty to de-clare them, I say at once the future will be exactly as the past: in the little that depends on me, I shall be guided hereafter, as heretofore, by the rule of maintaining equal rights irrespec-tively of religious differences; and shall resist all attempts to


exclude the members of the Roman Church from the benefit

of that rule. Indeed, I may say that I have already given

conclusive indications of this view, by supporting in Parlia-

ment, as a Minister, since 1870, the repeal of the Ecclesiastical

Titles Act, for what I think ample reasons. Not only because

the time has not yet come when we can assume the conse-quences of the revolutionary measures of 1870 to have been thoroughly weighed and digested by all capable men in the Roman Communion. Not only because so great a numerical proportion are, as I have before observed, necessarily incapable of mastering, and forming their personal judgment upon, the case. Quite irrespectively even of these considerations, I hold that our onward even course should not be changed by follies, the consequences of which, if the worst come to the worst, this country will have alike the power and, in case of need, the will to control. The State will, I trust, be ever careful to leave the domain of religious conscience free, and yet to keep it to its own domain; and to allow neither private caprice nor, above all, foreign arrogance to dictate to it in the dis-charge of its proper office. 'England expects every man to do his duty;' and none can be so well prepared under all cir-cumstances to exact its performance as that Liberal party which has done the work of justice alike for Nonconformists and for Papal dissidents, and whose members have so often, for the sake of that work, hazarded their credit with the markedly Protestant constituencies of the country. Strong the State of the United Kingdom has always been in material strength; and its moral panoply is now, we may hope, pretty complete.

It is not, then, for the dignity of the Crown and people of the United Kingdom to be diverted from a path which they have deliberately chosen, and which it does not rest with all the myrmidons of the Apostolic Chamber either openly to obstruct or secretly to undermine. It is rightfully to be ex-pected, it is greatly to be desired, that the Roman Catholics of this country should do in the Nineteenth century what their forefathers of England, except a handful of emissaries, did in the Sixteenth, when they were marshaled in resistance to the Armada, and in the Seventeenth, when, in despite of the Papal Chair, they sat in the House of Lords under the Oath of Allegiance. That which we are entitled to desire, we are entitled also to expect: indeed, to say we did not ex-pect it would in my judgment be the true way of conveying an 'insult' to those concerned. In this expectation we may be partially disappointed. Should those to whom I appeal thus unhappily come to bear witness in their own persons to the decay of sound, manly, true life in their Church, it will be their loss more than ours. The inhabitants of these Islands, as a whole, are stable, though sometimes credulous and ex-citable; resolute, though sometimes boastful: and a strong-headed and sound-hearted race will not be hindered, either by latent or by avowed dissents, due to the foreign influence of a caste, from the accomplishment of its mission in the world.



More than three hundred years after the close of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX., who had proclaimed the new dogma of the Immaculate Conception, who in the presence of five hundred Bishops had celebrated the eighteenth cen-tennial of the martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and who was permitted to survive not only the golden wedding of his priesthood, but even-alone among his more than two hundred and fifty predecessors-the silver wedding of his popedom (thus falsifying the tradition 'non videbit annos Petri')' resolved to convoke a new oecumenical Council, which was to proclaim his own infallibility in all matters of faith and discipline, and thus to put the top-stone to the pyramid of the Roman hierarchy.

He first intimated his intention, June 26, 1867, in an Allo-cution to five hundred Bishops who were assembled at the eighteenth centenary of the martyrdom of St. Peter in Rome. The Bishops, in a most humble and obsequious response, July 1, 1867, approved of his heroic courage, to employ, in his old age, an extreme measure for an extreme danger, and predicted a new splendor of the Church, and a new triumph of the kingdom of God. Whereupon the Pope announced to them that he would convene the Council under the special auspices of the immaculate Virgin, who had crushed the serpent's head and was mighty to destroy alone all the heresies of the world.

The call was issued by an Encyclical, commencing AEterni Patris Unigenitus Filius, in the twenty-third year of his Pontifi-cate, on the feast of St. Peter and Paul, June 29, 1868. It created at once a universal commotion in the Christian world, and called forth a multitude of books and pamphlets even before the Council convened. The highest expectations were suspended by the Pope and his sympathizers on the coming event. What the Council of Trent had effected against the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, the Council of the Vatican was to accomplish against the more radical and dangerous foes of modern liberalism and rationalism, which threatened to undermine Romanism itself in its own strong-holds. It was to crush the power of infidelity, and to settle all that belongs to the doctrine, worship, and discipline of the Church, and the eternal salvation of souls. It was even hoped that the Council might become a general feast of reconciliation of divided Christendom; and hence the Greek schismatics, and the Protestant heretics and other non-Catholics, were in-vited by two special letters of the Pope (Sept. 8, and Sept. 13, 1868) to return on this auspicious occasion to 'the only sheep-

fold of Christ,' for the salvation of their souls.

But the Eastern Patriarchs spurned the invitation, as an insult to their time-honored rights and traditions, from which they could not depart. The Protestant communions either ignored or respectfully declined it.

Thus the Vatican Council, like that of Trent, turned out to be simply a general Roman Council, and apparently put the prospect of a reunion of Christendom farther off than ever before.

While these sanguine expectations of Pius IX. were doomed to disappointment, the chief object of the Council was attained in spite of the strong opposition of the minority of liberal Catholics. This object, which for reasons of propriety is omitted in the bull of convocation and other preliminary acts, but clearly stated by the organs of the Ultramontane or Jesuitical party, was nothing less than the proclamation of the personal Infallibility of the Pope, as a binding article of the Roman Catholic faith for all time to come. Herein lies the whole importance of the Council; all the rest dwindles into insignificance, and could never have justified its con-vocation.


After extensive and careful preparations, the first (and perhaps the last) Vatican Council was solemnly opened amid the sound of innumerable bells and the cannon of St. Angelo, but under frowning skies and a pouring rain, on the festival of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, Dec. 8, 1869, in the Basilica of the Vatican. It reached its height at the fourth public session, July 18, 1870, when the decree of Papal Infallibility was proclaimed. After this it dragged on a sickly existence till October 20, 1870, when it was adjourned till Nov. 11, 1870, but indefinitely postponed on account of the extraordinary change in the political situation of Europe. For on the second of September the French Empire, which had been the main support of the temporal power of the Pope, collapsed with the surrender of Napoleon III., at the old Huguenot stronghold of Sedan, to the Protestant King William of Prussia, and on the twentieth of September the Italian troops, in the name of King Victor Emanuel, took possession of Rome, as the future capital of united Italy. Whether the Council will ever be convened again to complete its vast labors, like the twice interrupted Council of Trent, remains to be seen. But, in proclaiming the personal Infallibility of the Pope, it made all future oecumenical Councils unnecessary for the definition of dogmas and the regulation of discipline, so that hereafter they will be expensive luxuries and empty ritualistic shows. The acts of the Vatican Council, as far as they go, are irrevocable.

The attendance was larger than that of any of its eighteen predecessors, and presented an imposing array of hierarchical dignity and power such as the world never saw before, and as the Eternal City itself is not likely ever to see again. What a contrast this to the first Council of the apostles, elders, and brethren in an upper chamber in Jerusalem! The whole number of prelates of the Roman Catholic Church, who are entitled to a seat in an oecumenical Council, is one thousand and thirty-seven. Of these there were present at the opening of the Council 719, viz., 49 Cardinals, 9 Patriarchs, 4 Primates, 121 Archbishops, 479 Bishops, 57 Abbots and Generals of monastic orders. This number afterwards increased to 764, viz., 49 Cardinals, 10 Patriarchs, 4 Primates, 105 diocesan Archbishops, 22 Archbishops in partibus infidelium, 424 dio-cesan Bishops, 98 Bishops in partibus, and 52 Abbots, and Gen-erals of monastic orders. Distributed according to continents, 541 of these belonged to Europe, 83 to Asia, 14 to Africa, 113 to America, 13 to Oceanica. At the proclamation of the decree of Papal Infallibility, July 18, 1870, the number was reduced to 535, and afterwards it dwindled down to 200 or 180.

Among the many nations represented, the Italians had a vast majority of 276, of whom 143 belonged to the former Papal States alone. France, with a much larger Catholic population, had only 84, Austria and Hungary 48, Spain 41, Great Britain 35, Germany 19, the United States 48, Mexico 10, Switzerland 8, Belgium 6, Holland 4, Portugal 2, Russia 1. The disproportion between the representatives of the different nations and the number of their constituents was overwhelm-ingly in favor of the Papal influence. More than one-half of the Fathers were entertained during the Council at the ex-pense of the Pope.

The Romans themselves were remarkably indifferent to the Council, though keenly alive to the financial gain which the dogma of the Infallibility of their sovereign would bring to the Eternal City and the impoverished Papal treasury. It is well known how soon after the Council they voted almost in a body against the temporal power of the Pope, and for their new master.

The strictest secrecy was enjoined upon the members of the Council. The stenographic reports of the proceedings were locked up in the archives. The world was only to know the final results as proclaimed in the public sessions, until it should please the Roman court to issue an official history. Before the freedom of the press in the nineteenth century, the elements of discord in the Council itself, the enterprise or in-


discretion of members and friends of both parties, frustrated the precautions. The principal facts, documents, speeches, plans, and intrigues leaked out in the official schemata, the controversial pamphlets of Prelates, and the private reports and letters of outside observers who were in intimate and con-stant intercourse with their friends in the Council.

The subject-matter for deliberation was divided into four parts: on Faith, Discipline, Religious Orders, and on Rites, including Missions. Each part was assigned to a special Com-mission (Congregatio or Deputatio), consisting of 24 Prelates elected by ballot for the whole period of the Council, with a presiding Cardinal appointed by the Pope. These Commis-sions prepared the decrees on the basis of schemata previously drawn up by learned divines and canonists, and confidentially submitted to the Bishops in print. The decrees were then discussed, revised, and adopted in secret sessions by the General Congregation (Congregationes generates), including all the Fathers, with five presiding Cardinals appointed by the Pope. The General Congregation held eighty-nine sessions in all. Finally, the decrees thus matured were voted upon by simple yeas or nays (Placet or Non Placet), and solemnly promul-gated in public sessions in the presence and by the authority of the Pope. A conditional assent (Placet juxta modum) was allowed in the secret, but not in the public sessions.

There were only four such public sessions held during the ten months of the Council, viz., the opening session (lasting nearly seven hours), Dec. 8, 1869, which was a mere formality, but of a ritualistic splendor and magnificence such as can be gotten up nowhere on earth but in St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome; the second session, Jan. 6,1870, when the Fathers simply professed each one before the Pope the Nicene Creed and the Profession of the Tridentine Faith; the third session, April 24, 1870, when the dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith was unanimously adopted; and the fourth session, July 18, 1870, when the first dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ and the Infallibility of the Pope was adopted with two dissenting votes.

The management of the Council was entirely in the hands of the Pope and his dependent Cardinals and Jesuitical ad-visers. He originated the topics which were to be acted on; he selected the preparatory committees of theologians (mostly of the Ultramontane school) who, during the winter of 1868-69, drew up the schemata; he appointed the presiding officers of the four Deputations, and of the General Congregation; and he proclaimed the decrees in his own name, 'with the approval of the Council.' He provided, by the bull 'Cum Romanis Pontificibus', of Dec. 4, 1869, for the immediate suspension and adjournment of the Council in case of his death. He even personally interfered during the proceedings in favor of his new dogma by praising Infallibilists, and by ignoring or rebuking anti-Infallibilists. The discussion could be virtually arrested by the presiding Cardinals at the request of only ten members; we say virtually, for although it required a vote of the Council, a majority was always sure. The re-vised order of business, issued Feb. 22, 1870, departed even from the old rule requiring absolute or at least moral un-animity in definitions of faith (according to the celebrated canon quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est), and substituted for it a mere numerical majority, in order to secure the triumph of the Infallibility decree in spite of a powerful minority. Nothing could be printed in Rome against Infallibility, while the organs of Infallibility had full freedom to print and publish what they pleased. Such prominence of the Pope is characteristic of a Council convoked for the very purpose of proclaiming his personal infallibility, but is without precedent in history (except in some mediaeval Councils); even the Council of Trent maintained its own dignity and comparative independence by declaring its decrees in its own name.

This want of freedom of the Council-not to speak of the strict police surveillance over the members-was severely censured by liberal Catholics. More than one hundred Pre-lates of all nations signed a strong protest (dated Rome, March 1, 1870) against the order of business, especially against the mere majority vote, and expressed the fear that in the end the authority of this Council might be impaired as wanting in truth and liberty-a calamity so direful in these uneasy times, that a greater could not be imagined. But this protest, like all the acts of the minority, was ignored.

The proceedings were, of course, in the official language of the Roman Church, which all Prelates could understand and speak, but very few with sufficient ease to do justice to themselves and their subjects. The acoustic defects of the Council-hall and the difference of pronunciation proved a great inconvenience, and the Continentals complained that they could not understand the English Latin. The Council had a full share of ignorance and superstition, and was disgraced by intrigues and occasional outbursts of intolerance and pas-sion such as are, alas! not unusual in deliberative assemblies even of the Christian Church. But it embraced also much learning and eloquence, especially on the part of the French and German Episcopate. Upon the whole, it compares favor-ably, as to intellectual ability, moral character, and far-reaching effect, with preceding Roman Councils, and must be regarded as the greatest event in the history of the Papacy since the Council of Trent.

The chief importance of the Council of the Vatican lies in its decree of Papal supremacy and Infallibility. It settled the internal dissensions between Ultramontanism and Galli-canism, which struck at the root of the fundamental principle of authority; it destroyed the independence of the Episcopate, and made it a tool of the Primacy; it crushed liberal Catholi-cism; it completed the system of Papal absolutism; it raised the hitherto disputed opinion of Papal Infallibility to the dignity of a binding article of faith, which no Catholic can deny without loss of salvation. The Pope may now say not only, 'I am the tradition' (La tradizione son' io), but also, 'I am the Church' (L'eglise c'est moi)!

But this very triumph of absolutism marks also a new departure. It gave rise to a secession headed by the ablest divines of the Roman Church. It put the Papacy into direct antagonism to the liberal tendencies of the age. It excited the hostility of civil government in all those countries where Church and State are united on the basis of a concordat with the Roman See. No State with any degree of self-respect can treat with a sovereign who claims infallibility, and therefore unconditional submission in matters of moral duty as well as of faith. In reaching the summit of its power, the Papacy has hastened its downfall.

For Protestants and Greeks the Vatican Council is no more oecumenical than that of Trent, and has only intensified the antagonism. Its oecumenicity was also denied by such eminent Roman Catholic scholars as Dollinger, von Schulte, and Reinkens, before their excommunication as 'Old Catholics,' because it lacked the two fundamental conditions of liberty of discussion and moral unanimity of suffrage. But the sub-sequent submission of all the Bishops who had voted against Papal Infallibility, supplies the defect as far as the Roman Church is concerned. There was nothing left to them but either to submit or to be expelled. They chose the former, and thus destroyed the legal and moral force of their protest, although not the power of truth and the nature of the facts on which it was based. Henceforward Romanism must stand or fall with the Vatican Council. But (as we have before intimated) Romanism is not to be confounded with Catholi-cism any more than the Jewish hierarchy which crucified our Saviour, is identical with the people of Israel, from which sprang the Apostles and early converts of Christianity. The destruction of the infallible and irreformable Papacy may be the emancipation of Catholicism, and lead it from its prison-house to the light of a new Reformation.



Three schemes on matters of faith were prepared for the Vatican Council-one against Rationalism, one on the Church of Christ, and one on Christian Matrimony. The first two were revised and adopted; the third was indefinitely post-poned. There was also much discussion on the preparation of a small popular Catechism adapted to the present doctrinal status of the Roman Church, and intended to supersede the numerous popular Catechisms now in use; but the draft, which assigned the whole teaching power of the Church to the Pope, to the exclusion of the Episcopate, encountered such opposition (57 Non Placet, 24 conditional Placet) in the provisional vote of May 4, that it was laid on the table and never called up again.



It was unanimously adopted in the third public session, April 24 (Dominica in albis), 1870.

The original draft laid before the Council embraced eigh-teen chapters-on Pantheism, Rationalism, Scripture and tra-dition, revelation, faith and reason, the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, the primitive state, original sin, the Christian redemption, the supernatural order of grace; but was laid aside. Archbishop Connolly, of Halifax, recommended that it should be decently buried.

In its present form, the Constitution on the Catholic faith is reduced to four chapters, with a proemium and a conclusion. Chap. I. treats of God as the Creator; Chap. II. of revelation; Chap. III. of faith; Chap. IV. of faith and reason. Then follow 18 canons, in which the errors of Pantheism, Naturalism, and Rationalism are condemned in a manner substantially the same, though more clearly and fully, than had been done in the first two sections of the Syllabus.


The decree asserts, in the old scholastic terminology, the well-known principles of Supernaturalism as held by orthodox Christians in all ages, but it completely ignores the freedom and progress of theological and philosophical science and learning since the Council of Trent, and it forbids (in Chap. II.) all interpretation of the Scriptures which does not agree with the Romish traditions, the Latin Vulgate, and the ficti-tious 'unanimous consent of the Fathers.' Hence a liberal member of the Council, in the course of discussion, declared the schema de fide a work of supererogation. 'What boots it,' he said, 'to condemn errors which have been long condemned, and tempt no Catholic? The false beliefs of mankind are beyond the reach of your decrees. The best defense of Catholicism is religious science. Encourage sound learning, and prove by deeds as well as words that it is the mission of the Church to promote among the nations liberty, light, and true prosperity.' On the other hand, the Univers calls the schema a 'masterpiece of clearness and force;' the Civilta cattol-ica sees in it 'a reflex of the wisdom of God; and Archbishop Manning thinks that its importance 'can not be overestimated,' that it is 'the broadest and boldest affirmation of the super-natural and spiritual order ever yet made in the face of the world, which is now more than ever sunk in sense and heavy with Materialism.' Whatever be the value of the positive prin-ciples of the schema, its Popish head and tail reduce it to a brutum fulmen outside of the Romish Church, and even the most orthodox Protestants must apply to it the warning, Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.

The preamble, even in its present modified form, derives modern Rationalism and infidelity, as a legitimate fruit, from the heresies condemned by the Council of Trent1-that is, from the Protestant Reformation; in the face of the fact, patent to every scholar, that Protestant theology has been in the thickest of the fight with unbelief, and, notwithstanding all its excesses, has produced a far richer exegetical and apologetic literature than Romanism during the last three hundred


years. The boldest testimony heard in the Council was directed against this preamble by Bishop Strossmayer, from the Turkish frontier (March 22, 1870). He characterized the charge against Protestantism as neither just nor charitable. Protest-ants, he said, abhorred the errors condemned in the schema as much as Catholics. The germ of Rationalism existed in the Catholic Church before the Reformation, especially in the humanism which was nourished in the very sanctuary by the highest dignitaries, and bore its worst fruits in the midst of a Catholic nation at the time of Voltaire and the Encyclopedists. Catholics had produced no better refutation of the errors enumerated in the schema than such men as Leibnitz and Guizot. There were multitudes of Protestants in Germany, England, and North America who loved our Lord Jesus Christ, and had inherited from the shipwreck of faith posi-tive truths and monuments of divine grace. Although this speech was greeted with execrations (see page 145), it had at least the effect that the objectionable preamble was somewhat modified.

The supplement of the decree binds all Catholics to ob-serve also those constitutions and decrees by which such erroneous opinions as are not here specifically enumerated have been proscribed and condemned by the Holy See. This can be so construed as to include all the eighty errors of the Syllabus. The minority who in the General Congregation had voted Non Placet or only a conditional Placet, were quieted by the official assurance that the addition involved no new dogma, and had a disciplinary rather than a didactic character. 'Some gave their votes with a heavy heart, conscious of the snare.' Strossmayer stayed away. Thus a unanimous vote of 667 or 668 fathers was secured in the public session, and the Infallibility decree was virtually anticipated. The Pope, after proclaiming the dogma, gave the Bishops his benediction of peace, and gently intimated what he next expected from them.




It was passed, with two dissenting votes, in the fourth public session, July 18, 1870. It treats, in four chapters-

(1) on the institution of the Apostolic Primacy in the blessed Peter; (2) on the perpetuity of St. Peter's Primacy in the Roman Pontiff; (3) on the power and nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff; (4) on the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.

The new features are contained in the last two chapters, which teach Papal Absolutism and Papal Infallibility. The third chapter vindicates to the Roman Pontiff a superiority of ordinary episcopal (not simply an extraordinary primatial) power over all other Churches, and an immediate jurisdiction, to which all Catholics, both pastors and people, are bound to submit in matters not only of faith and morals, but even of discipline and government. He is, therefore, the Bishop of Bishops, over every single Bishop, and over all Bishops put together; he is in the fullest sense the Vicar of Christ, and all Bishops are simply Vicars of the Pope. The fourth chapter teaches and defines, as a divinely revealed dogma, that the Roman Pontiff, when speaking from his chair (ex cathedra),

i. e., in his official capacity, to the Christian world on subjects relating to faith or morals, is infallible, and that such defini-tions are irreformable (i. e., final and irreversible) in and of themselves, and not in consequence of the consent of the Church.

To appreciate the value and bearing of this decree, we must give a brief history of it.

The Infallibility question was suspended over the Council from the very beginning as the question of questions, for good or for evil. The original plan of the Infallibilists, to decide it by acclamation, had to be abandoned in view of a formid-able opposition, which was developed inside and outside of the Council. The majority of the Bishops circulated, early in


January, a monster petition, signed by 410 names, in favor of Infallibility. The Italians and the Spaniards circulated similar petitions separately. Archbishop Spalding, of Baltimore, for-merly an anti-Infallibilist, prepared an address offering some compromise to the effect that an appeal from the Pope to an oecumenical Council should be reproved. But five counter-petitions, signed by very weighty names, in all 137, represent-ing various degrees of opposition, but agreed as to the in-opportunity of the definition, were sent in during the same month (Jan. 12 to 18) by German and Austrian, Hungarian, French, American, Oriental, and Italian Bishops.

The Pope received none of these addresses, but referred them to the Deputation on Faith. While in this he showed his impartiality, he did not conceal, in a private way, his real opinion, and gave it the weight of his personal character and influence. 'Faith in his personal infallibility,' says a well-informed Catholic, 'and belief in a constant and special com-munication with the Holy Ghost, form the basis of the char-acter of Pius IX.' In the Council itself, Archbishop Manning, the Anglican convert, was the most zealous, devout, and en-thusiastic Infallibilist; he urged the definition as the surest means of gaining hesitating Anglo-Catholics and Ritualists longing for absolute authority; while his former teacher and friend, Dr. Pusey, feared that the new dogma would make the breach between Oxford and Rome wider than ever. Man-ning is 'more Catholic than Catholics' to the manor born, as the English settlers in Ireland were more Irish than Irish-men, and is altogether worthy to be the successor of Pius IX. in the chair of St. Peter. Both these eminent and remark-able persons show how a sincere faith in a dogma, which borders on blasphemy, may, by a strange delusion or halluci-nation, be combined with rare purity and amiability of char-acter.

Besides the all-powerful aid of the Pope, whom no Bishop can disobey without fatal consequences, the Infallibilists had


the great advantage of perfect unity of sentiment and aim; while the anti-Infallibilists were divided among themselves, many of them being simply inopportunists. They professed to agree with the majority in principle or practice, and to differ from them only on the subordinate question of defin-ability and opportunity. This qualified opposition had no weight whatever with the Pope, who was as fully convinced of the opportunity and necessity of the definition as he was of the dogma itself. And even the most advanced anti-In-fallibilists, as Kenrick, Hefele, and Strossmayer, were too much hampered by Romish traditionalism to plant their foot firmly on the Scriptures, which after all must decide all ques-tions of faith.

In the mean time a literary war on Infallibility was car-ried on in the Catholic Church in Germany, France, and Eng-land, and added to the commotion in Rome. A large number of pamphlets, written or inspired by prominent members of the Council, appeared for and against Infallibility. Distin-guished outsiders, as Dollinger, Gratry, Hyacinthe, Montalem-bert, and Newman, mixed in the fight, and strengthened the minority. The utterance of Dr. John Henry Newman, the intellectual leader of the Anglo-Catholic apostasy, and by far the ablest scholar and dialectician among English Romanists, reveals a most curious state of mind, oscillating between ab-solute infallibilism and hopeless skepticism, and taking refuge at last in prayer-not to Christ, nor to the Holy Ghost, nor to the Apostles, but-to St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine, that they might enlighten the Council at this criti-cal juncture, and decide the matter by their intercession.

After preliminary skirmishes, the formal discussion began in earnest in the 50th session of the General Congregation, May 13, 1870, and lasted to the 86th General Congregation, July 16. About eighty Latin speeches were delivered in the general discussion on the schema de Romano Pontifice, nearly one half of them on the part of the opposition, which em-braced less than one fifth of the Council. When the argu-


ments and the patience of the assembly were pretty well ex-hausted, the President, at the petition of a hundred and fifty Bishops, closed the general discussion on the third day of June. About forty more Bishops, who had entered their names, were thus prevented from speaking; but one of them, Archbishop Kenrick, of St. Louis, published his strong argu-ment against Infallibility in Naples. Then five special dis-cussions commenced on the proemium and the four chapters. 'For the fifth or last discussion a hundred and twenty Bishops inscribed their names to speak; fifty of them were heard, un-til on both sides the burden became too heavy to bear; and, by mutual consent, a useless and endless discussion, from mere exhaustion, ceased.'

When the vote was taken on the whole four chapters of the Constitution of the Church, July 13, 1870, in the 85th secret session of the General Congregation (601 members being present), 451 voted Placet, 88 Non Placet, 62 Placet juxta modum, over 80 (perhaps 91), though present in Rome or in the neighborhood, abstained for various reasons from voting. Among the negative votes were the Prelates most distinguished for learning and position, as Schwarzenberg, Cardinal Prince-Archbishop of Prague; Rauscher, Cardinal Prince-Archbishop of Vienna; Darboy, Archbishop of Paris; Matthieu, Cardinal-Archbishop of Besancon; Ginoulhiac, Archbishop of Lyons; Dupanloup, Bishop of Orleans; Maret, Bishop of Sura (i. p.); Simor, Archbishop of Gran and Pri-mate of Hungary; Haynald, Archbishop of Kalocsa; Forster, Prince-Archbishop of Breslau; Scherr, Archbishop of Munich; Ketteler, Bishop of Mayence; Hefele, Bishop of Rottenburg; Strossmayer, Bishop of Bosnia and Sirmium; MacHale, Arch-bishop of Tuam; Connolly, Archbishop of Halifax; Kenrick, Archbishop of St. Louis.

On the evening of the 13th of July the minority sent a deputation, consisting of Simor, Ginoulhiac, Scherr, Darboy, Ketteler, and Rivet, to the Pope. After waiting an hour, they were admitted at 9 o'clock in the evening. They asked sim-


ply for a withdrawal of the addition to the third chapter, which assigns to the Pope the exclusive possession of all eccles-iastical powers, and for the insertion, in the fourth chapter, of a clause limiting his infallibility to those decisions which he pronounces 'innixus testimono ecclesiarum.' Pius returned the almost incredible answer: 'I shall do what I can, my dear sons, but I have not yet read the scheme; I do not know what it contains.' He requested Darboy, the spokesman of the depu-tation, to hand him the petition in writing. Darboy promised to do so; and added, not without irony, that he would send with it the schema which the Deputation on Faith and the Legates had with such culpable levity omitted to lay before his Holiness, exposing him to the risk of proclaiming in a few days a decree he was ignorant of. Pius surprised the deputation by the astounding assurance that the whole Church had always taught the unconditional Infallibility of the Pope. Then Bishop Ketteler of Mayence implored the holy Father on his knees to make some concession for the peace and unity of the Church. This prostration of the proudest of the Ger-man prelates made some impression. Pius dismissed the depu-tation in a hopeful temper. But immediately afterwards Man-ning and Senestrey (Bishop of Regensburg) strengthened his faith, and frightened him by the warning that, if he made any concession, he would be disgraced in history as a second Honorius.

In the secret session on the 16th of July, on motion of some Spanish Bishops, an addition was inserted 'non autem ex consensu ecclesiae,' which makes the decree still more obnox-ious. On the same day Cardinal Rauscher, in a private audi-ence, made another attempt to induce the Pope to yield, but was told, 'It is too late.'

On the 17th of July fifty-six Bishops sent a written protest to the Pope, declaring that nothing had occurred to change their conviction as expressed in their negative vote; on the contrary, they were confirmed in it; yet filial piety and rever-ence for the holy Father would not permit them to vote Non


Placet, openly and in his face, in a matter which so intimately concerned his person, and that therefore they had resolved to return forthwith to their flocks, which had already too long been deprived of their presence, and were now filled with apprehensions of war. Schwarzenberg, Matthieu, Simor, and Darboy head the list of signers. On the evening of the same day not only the fifty-six signers, but sixty additional mem-bers of the opposition departed from Rome, promising to each other to make their future conduct dependent on mutual understanding.

This was the turning-point: the opposition broke down by its own act of cowardice. They ought to have stood like men on the post of duty, and repeated their negative vote according to their honest convictions. They could thus have prevented the passage of this momentous decree, or at all events shorn it of its oecumenical weight, and kept it open for future revision and possible reversal. But they left Rome at the very moment when their presence was most needed, and threw an easy victory into the lap of the majority.

When, therefore, the fourth public session was held, on the memorable 18th of July (Monday), there were but 535 Fathers present, and of these all voted Placet, with the excep-tion of two, viz., Bishop Riccio, of Cajazzo, in Sicily, and Bishop Fitzgerald, of Little Rock, Arkansas, who had the courage to vote Non Placet, but immediately, before the close of the session, submitted to the voice of the Council. In this way a moral unanimity was secured as great as in the first Council of Nicaea, where likewise two refused to subscribe the Nicene Creed. 'What a wise direction of Providence,' ex-claimed the Civilta cattolica, '535 yeas against 2 nays. Only two nays, therefore almost total unanimity; and yet two nays, there-fore full liberty of the Council. How vain are all attacks against the oecumenical character of this most beautiful of all Councils!'

After the vote the Pope confirmed the decrees and canons on theConstitution of theChurch of Christ, and added from


his own inspiration the assurance that the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff did not suppress but aid, not destroy but build up, and formed the best protection of the rights and interests of the Episcopate.

The days of the two most important public sessions of the Vatican Council, namely the first and the last, were the darkest and stormiest which Rome saw from Dec. 8, 1869, to the 18th of July, 1870. The Episcopal votes and the Papal proclamation of the new dogma were accompanied by flashes of lightning and claps of thunder from the skies, and so great was the darkness which spread over the Church of St. Peter, that the Pope could not read the decree of his own Infallibility without the artificial light of a candle. This voice of nature was variously interpreted, either as a condemnation of Galli-canism and liberal Catholicism, or as a divine attestation of the dogma like that which accompanied the promulgation of the law from Mount Sinai, or as an evil omen of impending calamities to the Papacy.

And behold, the day after the proclamation of the dogma, Napoleon III., the political ally and supporter of Pius IX., un-chained the furies of war, which in a few weeks swept away the Empire of France and the temporal throne of the infallible Pope. His own subjects forsook him, and almost unanimously voted for a new sovereign, whom he had excommunicated as the worst enemy of the Church. A German Empire arose from victorious battle-fields, and Protestantism sprung to the political and military leadership of Europe. About half a dozen Protestant Churches have since been organized in Rome, where none was tolerated before, except outside of the walls or in the house of some foreign embassador; a branch of the Bible Society was established, which the Pope in his Syllabus denounces as a pest; and a public debate was held in which even the presence of Peter at Rome was called in question. History records no more striking example of swift retribution of criminal ambition. Once before the Papacy was shaken to its base at the very moment when it felt itself most secure:


Leo X. had hardly concluded the fifth and last Lateran Council in March, 1517, with a celebration of victory, when an humble monk in the North of Europe sounded the key-note of the great Reformation.

What did the Bishops of the minority do? They all sub-mitted, even those who had been most vigorous in opposing, not only the opportunity of the definition, but. the dogma itself. Some hesitated long, but yielded at last to the heavy pressure. Cardinal Rauscher, of Vienna, published the decree already in August, and afterwards withdrew his powerful 'Observations on the Infallibility of the Church' from the market; regarding this as an act of glorious self-denial for the welfare of the Church. Cardinal Schwarzenberg, of Prague, waited with the publication till Jan. 11, 1871, and shifted the responsibility upon his theological advisers. Bishop Hefele, of Rottenburg, who has forgotten more about the history of Councils than the infallible Pope ever knew, after delaying till April 10, 1871, submitted, not because he had changed his conviction, but, as he says, because 'the peace and unity of the Church is so great a good that great and heavy personal sacrifices may be made for it;' i. e., truth must be sacrificed to peace. Bishop Maret, who wrote two learned volumes against Papal Infallibility and in defense of Gallican-ism, declared in his retractation that he 'wholly rejects every thing in his work which is opposed to the dogma of the Council,' and 'withdraws it from sale.' Archbishop Kenrick yielded, but has not refuted his Concio habenda at non habita, which remains an irrefragable argument against the new dogma. Even Strossmayer, the boldest of the bold in the minority, lost his courage, and keeps his peace. Darboy died a martyr in the revolt of the communists of Paris, in April, 1871. In a conversation with Dr. Michaud, Vicar of St. Madelene, who since seceded from Rome, he counseled external and official submission, with a mental reservation, and in the hope of better times. His successor, Msgr. Guibert, published the decrees a year later (April, 1872), without asking the


permission of the head of the French Republic. Of those opponents who, though not members of the Council, carried as great weight as any Prelate, Montalembert died during the Council; Newman kept silence; Pere Gratry, who had declared and proved that the question of Honorius 'is totally gangrened by fraud,' wrote from his death-bed at Montreux, in Switzer-land (Feb. 1872), to the new Archbishop of Paris, that he submitted to the Vatican Council, and effaced 'every thing to the contrary he may have written.'

It is said that the adhesion of the minority Bishops was extorted by the threat of the Pope not to renew their 'quin-quennial faculties' (facilitates quinquennales), that is, the Papal licenses renewed every five years, permitting them to exer-cise extraordinary episcopal functions which ordinarily be-long to the Pope, as the power of absolving from heresy, schism, apostasy, secret crime (except murder), from vows, duties of fasting, the power of permitting the reading of pro-hibited books (for the purpose of refutation), marrying within prohibited degrees, etc.

But, aside from this pressure, the following considerations sufficiently explain the fact of submission.

1. Many of the dissenting Bishops were professedly anti-Infallibilists, not from principle, but only from subordinate considerations of expediency, because they apprehended that the definition would provoke the hostility of secular govern-ments, and inflict great injury on Catholic interests, especially in Protestant countries. Events have since proved that their apprehension was well founded.

2. All Roman Bishops are under an oath of allegiance to the Pope, which binds them 'to preserve, defend, increase, and advance the rights, honors, privileges, and authority of the holy Roman Church, of our lord the Pope, and his successors.'

3. The minority Bishops defended Episcopal infallibility against Papal infallibility. They claimed for themselves what they denied to the Pope. Admitting the infallibility of an


oecumenical Council, and forfeiting by their voluntary absence on the day of voting the right of their protest, they must either on their own theory accept the decision of the Council, or give up their theory, cease to be Roman Catholics, and run the risk of a new schism.

At the same time this submission is an instructive lesson of the fearful spiritual despotism of the Papacy, which over-rules the stubborn facts of history and the sacred claims of individual conscience. For the facts so clearly and forcibly brought out before and during the Council by such men as Kenrick, Hefele, Rauscher, Maret, Schwarzenberg, and Dupan-loup, have not changed, and can never be undone. On the one hand we find the results of a life-long, conscientious, and thorough study of the most learned divines of the Roman Church, on the other ignorance, prejudice, perversion, and defiance of Scripture and tradition; on the one hand we have history shaping theology, on the other theology ignoring or changing history; on the one hand the just exercise of reason, on the other blind submission, which destroys reason and conscience. But truth must and will prevail at last.

The sinlessness of the Virgin Mary and the personal in-fallibility of the Pope are the characteristic dogmas of modern Romanism, the two test dogmas which must decide the ulti-mate fate of this system. Both were enacted under the same Pope, and both faithfully reflect his character. Both have the advantage of logical consistency from certain premises, and seem to be the very perfection of the Romish form of piety and the Romish principle of authority. Both rest on pious fiction and fraud; both present a refined idolatry by clothing a pure humble woman and a mortal sinful man with divine attributes. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which exempts the Virgin Mary from sin and guilt, perverts Christianism into Marianism; the dogma of Infallibility, which exempts the Bishop of Rome from error, resolves Catholicism into Papalism, or the Church into the Pope. The worship of a woman is virtually substituted for the worship of Christ, and a man-god in Rome for the God-Man in heaven. This is a severe judgment, but a closer examination will sustain it.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, being con-fined to the sphere of devotion, passed into the modern Roman creed without serious difficulty; but the dogma of Papal In-fallibility, which involves a question of absolute power, forms an epoch in the history of Romanism, and created the greatest commotion and a new secession. It is in its very nature the most fundamental and most comprehensive of all dogmas.

It contains the whole system in a nutshell. It constitutes a new rule of faith. It is the article of the standing or falling Church. It is the direct antipode of the Protestant principle of the absolute supremacy and infallibility of the Holy Scrip-tures. It establishes a perpetual divine oracle in the Vatican. Every Catholic may hereafter say, I believe-not because Christ, or the Bible, or the Church, but-because the infallible Pope has so declared and commanded. Admitting this dogma, we admit not only the whole body of doctrines contained in the Tridentine standards, but all the official Papal bulls, including the mediaeval monstrosities of the Syllabus (1864), the con-demnation of Jansenism, the bull 'Unam Sanctum' of Boniface

VIII. (1302), which, under pain of damnation, claims for the Pope the double sword, the secular as well as the spiritual, over the whole Christian world, and the power to depose princes and to absolve subjects from their oath of allegiance. The past is irreversibly settled, and in all future controversies on faith and morals we must look to the same unerring tribunal in the Vatican. Even oecumenical Councils are super-seded hereafter, and would be a mere waste of time and strength.

On the other hand, if the dogma is false, it involves a blasphemous assumption, and makes the nearest approach to the fulfillment of St. Paul's prophecy of the man of sin, who 'as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself off that he is God' (2 Thess. ii 4).



Let us first see what the dogma does not mean, and what it does mean.

It does not mean that the Pope is infallible in his private opinions on theology and religion. As a man, he may be a heretic (as Liberius, Honorius, and John XXII.) or even an unbeliever (as John XXIII., and, perhaps, Leo X.), and yet, at the same time, infallible as Pope, after the fashion of Balaam and Kaiphas.

Nor does it mean that infallibility extends beyond the proper sphere of religion and the Church. The Pope may be ignorant of science and literature, and make grave mistakes in his political administration, or be misinformed on matters of fact (unless necessarily involved in doctrinal decisions), and yet be infallible in defining articles of faith.

Infallibility does not imply impeccability. And yet free-dom from error and freedom from sin are so nearly con-nected in men's minds that it seems utterly impossible that such moral monsters as Alexander VI. and those infamous Popes who disgraced humanity during the Roman pornocracy in the tenth and eleventh centuries, should have been vicars of Jesus Christ and infallible organs of the Holy Ghost. If the inherent infallibility of the visible Church logically neces-sitates the infallibility of the visible head, it is difficult to see why the same logic should not with equal conclusiveness de-rive the personal holiness of the head from the holiness of the body.

On the other hand, the dogma does mean that all official utterances of the Roman Pontiff addressed to the Catholic Church on matters of Christian faith and duty are infallibly true, and must be accepted with the same faith as the word of the living God. They are not simply final in the sense in which all decisions of an absolute government or a supreme court of justice are final until abolished or superseded by other decisions, but they are irreformable, and can never be revoked. This infallibility extends over eighteen centuries, and is a special privilege by Christ upon Peter, and through him upon all of his legitimate successors. It belongs to every Pope from Clement to Pius IX., and to every Papal bull addressed to the Catholic world. It is personal, i. e., inherent in Peter and the Popes; it is independent, and needs no con-firmation from the Church or an oecumenical Council, either preceding or succeeding; its decrees are binding, and can not be rejected without running the risk of eternal damnation.

Even within the narrow limits of the Vatican decision there is room for controversy on the precise meaning of the figurative term ex cathedra loqui, and the extent of faith and morals, viz., whether Infallibility includes only the super-natural order of revealed truth and duty, or also natural and political duties, and questions of mere history, such as Peter's residence in Rome, the number of oecumenical Councils, the teaching of Jansen and Quesnel, and other disputed facts closely connected with dogmas. But the main point is clear enough. The Ultramontane theory is established, Gallicanism is dead and buried.

Ultramontanism and Gallicanism.

The Vatican dogma is the natural completion of the Papal polity, as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is the completion of the Papal cultus.

If we compare the Papal or Ultramontane theory with the Episcopal or Gallican theory, it has the undeniable advantage of logical consistency. The two systems are related to each other like monarchy and aristocracy, or rather like absolute monarchy and limited monarchy. The one starts from the divine institution of the Primacy (Matt. xvi. 18), and teaches the infallibility of the head; the other starts from the divine institution of the Episcopate (Matt, xviii. 18), and teaches the infallibility of the body and the superiority of an oecumenical Council over the Pope. Conceding once the infallibility of the collective Episcopate, we must admit, as a consequence, the infallibility of the Primacy, which represents the Episcopate, and forms its visible and permanent centre. If the body of the teaching Church can never err, the head can not err; and, vice versa, if the head is liable to error, the body can not be free from error. The Gallican theory is an untenable via media. It secures only a periodic and intermittent infallibility, which reveals itself in an oecumenical Council, and then relapses into a quiescent state; but the Ultramontane theory teaches an un-broken, ever living, and ever active infallibility, which alone can fully answer the demands of an absolute authority.

To refute Papal infallibility is to refute also Episcopal in-fallibility; for the higher includes the lower. The Vatican Council is the best argument against the infallibility of oecu-menical Councils, for it sanctioned a fiction, in open and ir-reconcilable contradiction to older oecumenical Councils, which not only assumed the possibility of Papal fallibility, but actually condemned a Pope as a heretic. The fifth Lateran Council (1512) declared the decrees of the Council of Pisa (1409) null and void; the Council of Florence denied the validity of the Council of Basle, and this denied the validity of the former. The Council of Constance condemned and burned John Huss for teaching evangelical doctrines; and this fact forced upon Luther, at the disputation with Eck at Leipzig, the conviction that even oecumenical Councils may err. Rome itself has rejected certain canons of Constantinople and Chalcedon, which put the Pope on a par with the Patriarch of Constantinople; and a strict construction of the Papal theory would rule out the old oecumenical Councils, because they were not convened nor controlled by the Pope; while the Greek Church rejects all Councils which were purely Latin.

The Bible makes no provision and has no promise for an oecumenical Council. The Church existed and flourished for more than three hundred years before such a Council was heard of. Large assemblies are often ruled by passion, intrigue, and worldly ambition (remember the complaints of Gregory of Nazianzum on the Synods of the Nicene age). Majorities are not necessarily decisive in matters of faith. Christ promised to be even with two or three who are gathered in his name (Matt, xviii. 20). Elijah and the seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal were right over against the great mass of the people of Israel. Athanasius versus mundum represented the truth, and the world versus Athanasium was in error during the ascendency of Arianism. In the eighteenth century the Church, both Catholic and Protestant, was under the power of infidelity, and true Christianity had to take refuge in small communities. Augustine maintained that one Council may correct another, and attain to a more perfect knowledge of truth. The history of the Church is unintelligible without the theory of progressive development, which implies many ob-structions and temporary diseases. All the attributes of the Church are subject to the law of gradual expansion and growth, and will not be finally complete till the second com-ing of our Lord.

The Infallibility of the Pope and Personal Responsibility.

The Christian Church, as a divine institution, can never fail and never lose the truth. Christ has pledged his Spirit and life-giving presence to his people to the end of time, and even to two or three of his humblest disciples assembled in his name; yet they are not on that account infallible. He gave authority in matters of discipline to every local Church (Matt. xviii. 17); and yet no one claims infallibility to every congregation. The Holy Spirit will always guide believers into the truth, and the unerring Word of God can never perish. But local churches, like individuals, may fall into error, and be utterly destroyed from the face of the earth. The true Church of Christ always makes progress, and will go on conquering and to conquer to the end of the world. But the particular churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Con-stantinople, Asia Minor, and North Africa, where once the Apostles and St. Augustine taught, have disappeared, or crumbled into ruin, or have been overrun by the false prophet.


The truth will ever be within the reach of the sincere inquirer wherever the gospel is preached and the sacraments are rightly administered. God has revealed himself plainly enough for all purposes of salvation; and yet not so plainly as to supersede the necessity of faith, and to resolve Christianity into a mathematical demonstration. He has given us a rational mind to think and to judge, and a free will to accept or to reject. Christian faith is no blind submission, but an intelligent assent. It implies anxiety to inquire as well as willingness to receive. We are expressly directed to 'prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good' (1 Thess. v. 21); to try the spirits whether they are of God (1 John iv. 1), and to refuse obedience even to an angel from heaven if he preach a different gospel (Gal. i. 8). The Beroean Jews are com-mended as being more noble than those of Thessalonica, be-cause they received the Word with all readiness of mind, and yet searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so (Acts xvii. 11). It was the infallible Scriptures alone, and not from tradition, that Paul and Apollos reasoned, after the example of Christ, who appeals to Moses and the Prophets, and speaks disparagingly of the traditions of the elders as obscuring the Word of God or destroying its true effect.

In opposition to all this the Vatican dogma requires a wholesale slaughter of the intellect and will, and destroys the sense of personal responsibility. The fundamental error of Rome is that she identifies the true ideal Church of Christ with the empirical Church, and the empirical Church with the Romish Church, and the Romish Church with the Papacy, and the Papacy with the Pope, and at last substitutes a mortal man for the living Christ, who is the only and ever present head of the Church, 'which is his body, the fulness of him who filleth all in all.' Christ needs no vicar, and the very idea of a vicar implies the absence of the Master.

Papal Infallibility Tested by Tradition

The dogma of Papal Infallibility is mainly supported by an inferential dogmatic argument derived from the Primacy

of Peter, who, as the Vicar of Christ, must also share in his infallibility; or from the nature and aim of the Church, which is to teach men the way of salvation, and must therefore be endowed with an infallible and ever available organ for that purpose, since God always provides the means together with an end. A full-blooded Infallibilist, whose piety consists in absolute submission and devotion to his lord the Pope, is per-fectly satisfied with this reasoning, and cares little or nothing for the Bible and for history, except so far as they suit his purpose. If facts disagree with his dogmas, all the worse for the facts. All you have to do is to ignore or to deny them, or to force them, by unnatural interpretations, into reluctant obedience to the dogmas. But after all, even according to the Roman Catholic theory, Scripture and history or tradition are the two indispensable tests of the truth of a dogma. It has always been held that the Pope and the Bishops are not the creators and judges, but the trustees and witnesses of the apostolic deposit of faith, and that they can define and pro-claim no dogma which is not well founded in primitive tra-dition, written or unwritten. According to the famous rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, a dogma must have three marks of catholicity: the catholicity of time (semper), of space (ubique), and of number (ab omnibus). The argument from tradition is absolutely essential to orthodoxy in the Roman sense, and, as hitherto held, more essential than Scripture proof. The difference between Romanism and Protestantism on this point is this: Romanism requires proof from tradition first, from Scripture next, and makes the former indispensable, the latter simply desirable; while Protestantism reverses the order, and with its theory of the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice, and as an inexhaustible mine of truth that yields precious ore to every successive generation of miners, it may even dispense with traditional testimony altogether, provided that a doctrine can be clearly derived from the Word of God.

Now it can be conclusively proved that the dogma of Papal Infallibility, like the dogma of the Immaculate Con-


ception of Mary, lacks every one of the three marks of cath-olicity. It is a comparatively modern innovation. It was not dreamed of for more than a thousand years, and is unknown to this day in the Greek Church, the oldest in the world, and in matters of antiquity always an important witness. The whole history of Christianity would have taken a different course, if in all theological controversies an infallible tribunal in Rome could have been invoked. Ancient Creeds, Councils, Fathers, and Popes can be summoned as witnesses against the Vatican dogma.

1. The four oecumenical Creeds, the most authoritative ex-pressions of the old Catholic faith of the Eastern and Western Churches, contain an article on the 'holy Catholic and Apos-tolic Church,' but not one word about the Bishops of Rome, or any other local Church. How easy and natural, yea, in view of the fundamental importance of the Infallibility dogma, how necessary would have been the insertion of Roman after the other predicates of the Church, or the addition of the article: 'The Pope of Rome, the successor of Peter and in-fallible vicar of Christ.' If it had been believed then as now, it would certainly appear at least in the Roman form of the Apostles' Creed; but this is as silent on this point as the Aquilejan, the African, the Gallican, and other forms. And this uniform silence of all the oecumenical Creeds is strengthened by the numerous local Creeds of the Nicene age, and by the various ante-Nicene rules of faith up to Ter-tullian and Irenaeus, not one of which contains an allusion to such an article of faith.

2. The oecumenical Councils of the first eight centuries, which are recognized by the Greek and Latin Churches alike, are equally silent about, and positively inconsistent with, Papal Infallibility. They were called by Greek Emperors, not by Popes; they were predominantly, and some of them exclusively, Oriental; they issued their decrees in their own name, and in the fulness of authority, without thinking of

submitting them to the approval of Rome; they even claimed the right of judging and condemning the Roman Pontiff, as well as any other Bishop or Patriarch.

In the first Nicene Council there was but one representa-tive of the Latin Church (Hosius of Spain); and in the second and the fifth oecumenical Councils there was none at all. The second oecumenical Council (381), in the third canon, put the Patriarch of Constantinople on a par with the Bishop of Rome, assigning to the latter only a primacy of honor; and the fourth oecumenical Council (451) confirmed this canon in spite of the energetic protest of Pope Leo I.

But more than this: the sixth oecumenical Council, held 680, pronounced the anathema on Honorius, 'the former Pope of old Rome,' for teaching officially the Monothelite heresy; and this anathema was signed by all the members of the Council, including the three delegates of the Pope, and was several times repeated by the seventh and eighth Councils, which were presided over by Papal delegates. But we must return to this famous case again in another connection.

3. The Fathers, even those who unconsciously did most service to Rome, and laid the foundation for its colossal pre-tensions, yet had no idea of ascribing absolute supremacy and infallibility to the Pope.

Clement of Rome, the first Roman Bishop of whom we have any authentic account, wrote a letter to the Church at Corinth-not in his name, but in the name of the Roman Congregation; not with an air of superior authority, but as a brother to brethren-barely mentioning Peter, but eulog-izing Paul, and with a clear consciousness of the great dif-ference between an Apostle and a Bishop or Elder,

Ignatius of Antioch, who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Trajan, highly as he extols Episcopacy and Church unity in his seven Epistles, one of which is addressed to the Roman Christians, makes no distinction of rank among Bishops, but treats them as equals.


Irenaeus of Lyons, thechampion of theCatholic faith against the Gnostic heresy at the close of the second century, and the author of the famous and variously understood pas-sage about the potentior principalitas ecclesoe Romans, sharply reproved Victor of Rome when he ventured to excommunicate the Asiatic Christians for their different mode of celebrating Easter, and told him that it was contrary to Apostolic doctrine and practice to judge brethren on account of eating and drink-ing, feasts and new moons. Cyprian, likewise a saint and a martyr, in the middle of the third century, in his zeal for visible and tangible unity against the schismatics of his diocese, first brought out the fertile doctrine of the Roman See as the chair of Peter and the centre of Catholic unity; yet with all his Romanizing tendency he was the great champion of the Episcopal solidarity and equality system, and always ad-dressed the Roman Bishop as his 'brother' and 'colleague;' he even stoutly opposed Pope Stephen's view of the validity of heretical baptism, charging him with error, obstinacy, and presumption. He never yielded, and the African Bishops, at the third Council at Carthage (256), emphatically indorsed his opposition. Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea, and Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, likewise bitterly condemned the doctrine and conduct of Stephen, and told him that in excommuni-cating others he only excommunicated himself.

Augustine is often quoted by Infallibilists on account of his famous dictum, Roma locuta est, causa finita est. But he simply means that, since the Councils of Mileve and Carthage had spoken, and Pope Innocent I. had acceded to their de-cision, the Pelagian controversy was finally settled (although it was, after all, not settled till after his death, at the Council of Ephesus). Had he dreamed of the abuse made of this utterance, he would have spoken very differently. For the same Augustine apologized for Cyprian's opposition to Pope Stephen on the ground that the controversy had then not yet been decided by a Council, and maintained the view of the liability of Councils to correction and improvement by sub-sequent Councils. He moreover himself opposed Pope Zosi-mus, when, deceived by Pelagius, he declared him sound in the faith, although Pope Innocent I. had previously excom-municated him as a dangerous heretic. And so determined were the Africans, under the lead of Augustine (417 and 418), that Zosimus finally saw proper to yield and to con-demn Pelagianism in his 'Epistola Tractoria.'

Gregory I., or the Great, the last of the Latin Fathers, and the first of the mediaeval Popes (590-604)-, stoutly pro-tested against the assumption of the title oecumenical or uni-versal Bishop on the part of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria, and denounced this whole title and claim as blasphemous, anti-Christian, and devilish, since Christ alone was the Head and Bishop of the Church universal, while Peter, Paul, Andrew, and John, were members under the same Head, and heads only of single portions of the whole. Gregory would rather call himself 'the servant of the servants of God,' which, in the mouths of his successors, pretending to be Bishops of bishops and Lords of lords, has become a shame-less irony.

As to the Greek Fathers, it would be useless to quote them, for the entire Greek Church in her genuine testimonies has never accepted the doctrine of Papal supremacy, much less of Papal Infallibility.

4. Heretical Popes.-We may readily admit the rock-like stability of the Roman Church in the early controversies on the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, as compared with the motion and changeability of the Greek churches during the same period, when the East was the chief theatre of dogmatic controversy and progress. Without some foundation in his-tory, the Vatican dogma could not well have arisen. It would be impossible to raise the claim of infallibility in behalf of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, or Antioch, or Alexandria, or Con-stantinople, among whom were noted Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, and other heretics. Yet there


are not a few exceptions to the rule; and as many Popes, in their lives, flatly contradicted their title of holiness, so many departed, in their views, from Catholic truth. That the Popes after the Reformation condemned and cursed Protestant truths well founded in the Scriptures, we leave here out of sight, and confine our reasoning to facts within the limits of Roman Catholic orthodoxy.

The canon law assumes throughout that a Pope may openly teach heresy, or contumaciously contradict the Catholic doctrine; for it declares that, while he stands about all secular tribunals, yet he can be judged and deposed for the crime of heresy. This assumption was so interwoven in the faith of the Middle Ages that even the most powerful of all Popes, Innocent III. (d. 1216), gave expression to it when he said that, though he was only responsible to God, he may sin against the faith, and thus become subject to the judgment of the Church. Innocent IV. (d. 1254) speaks of heretical com-mands of the Pope, which need not be obeyed. When Boni-face VIII. (d. 1303) declared that every creature must obey the Pope at the loss of eternal salvation, he was charged with having a devil, because he presumed to be infallible, which was impossible without witchcraft. Even Hadrian VI., in the sixteenth century, expressed the view, which he did not recant as Pope, that 'if by the Roman Church is understood its head, the Pope, it is certain that he can err even in matters of faith.'

This old Catholic theory of the fallibility of the Pope is abundantly borne out by actual facts, which have been established again and again by Catholic scholars of the highest authority for learning and candor. We need no better proofs than those furnished by them.

Zephyrinus (201-219) and Callistus (219-223) held and taught (according to the 'Philosophumena' of Hippolytus, a martyr and saint) the Patripassian heresy, that God the Father becameincarnateand suffered with theSon.


Pope Liberius, in 358, subscribed an Arian creed for the purpose of regaining his episcopate, and condemned Athanasius, 'the father of orthodoxy,' when mentions the fact with indig-nation.

During the same period, his rival, Felix II., was a decided Arian; but there is a dispute about his legitimacy; some re-garding him as an anti-Pope, although he has a place in the Romish Calendar of Saints, and Gregory XIII. (1582) con-firmed his claim to sanctity, against which Baronius protested.

In the Pelagian controversy, Pope Zosimus at first indorsed the orthodoxy of Pelagius and Celestius, whom his predeces-sor, Innocent I., had condemned; but he yielded afterwards to the firm protest of St. Augustine and the African Bishops.

In the Three-Chapter controversy, Pope Vigilius (538-555) showed a contemptible Vacillation between two opinions: first indorsing; then, a year afterwards, condemning (in obedience to the Emperor's wishes) the Three Chapters (i. e., the writings of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas); then refusing the condemnation; then, tired of exile, submitting to the fifth oecumenical Council (553), which had broken off com-munion with him; and confessing that he had unfortunately been the tool of Satan, who labors for the destruction of the Church. A long schism in the West was the consequence. Pope Pelagius II. (585) significantly excused this weakness by the inconsistency of St. Peter at Antioch.

John XXII. (d. 1334) maintained, in opposition to Nicholas

III. and Clement V. (d. 1314), that the Apostles did not live in perfect poverty, and branded the opposite doctrine of his predecessors as heretical and dangerous. He also held an opinion concerning the middle state of the righteous, which was condemned as heresy by the University of Paris.

Contradictory opinions were taught by different Popes on the sacraments, on the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary (see p. 123), on matrimony, and on the subjection of the temporal power to the Church.


But the most notorious case of an undeniably official in-dorsement of heresy by a Pope is that of Honorius I. (625-638), which alone is sufficient to disprove Papal Infallibility, according to the maxim: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. This case has been sifted to the very bottom before and during the Council, especially by Bishop Hefele and Pere Gratry. The following decisive facts are established by the best docu-mentary evidence:

(1.) Honorius taught ex cathedra (in two letters to his heretical colleague, Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople) the Monothelite heresy, which was condemned by the sixth oecumenical Council, i. e., the doctrine that Christ had only one will, and not two (corresponding to his two natures.)

(2.) An oecumenical Council, universally acknowledged in the East and in the West, held in Constantinople, 680, condemned and excommunicated Honorius, 'the former Pope of Old Rome,' as a heretic, who with the help of the old ser-pent had scattered deadly error. The seventh oecumenical Council (787) and the eighth (869) repeated the anathema of the sixth.

(3.) The succeeding Popes down to the eleventh century, in a solemn oath at their accession, indorsed the sixth oecu-menical Council, and pronounced 'an eternal anathema' on the authors of the Monothelite heresy, together with Pope Honorius, because he had given aid and comfort to the per-verse doctrines of the heretics. The Popes themselves, there-fore, for more than three centuries, publicly recognized, first, that an oecumenical Council may condemn a Pope for open heresy, and, secondly, that Pope Honorius was justly con-demned for heresy. Pope Leo II., in a letter to the Emperor, strongly confirmed the decree of the Council, and denounced his predecessor Honorius as one who 'endeavored by profane treason to overthrow the immaculate faith of the Roman Church.' The same Pope says, in a letter to the Spanish Bishops: 'With eternal damnation have been punished Theo-dore, Cyrus, Sergius-together with Honorius, who did not extinguish at the very beginning the flame of heretical doctrine, as was becoming to his apostolic authority, but nursed it by his carelessness.'

This case of Honorius is as clear and strong as any fact in Church history. Infallibilists have been driven to desperate efforts. Some pronounce the acts of the Council, which exist in Greek and Latin, downright forgeries (Baronius); others, admitting the acts, declare the letters of Honorius forgeries, so that he was unjustly condemned by the Council (Bellarmin) -both without a shadow of proof; still others, being forced at last to acknowledge the genuineness of the letters and acts, distort the former into an orthodox sense by a non-natural exegesis, and thus unwillingly fasten upon oecumenical Councils and Popes the charge of either dogmatic ignorance and stupidity, or malignant representation. Yet in every case the decisive fact remains that both Councils and Popes for several hundred years believed in the fallibility of the Pope, in flat contradiction to the Vatican Council. Such acts of violence upon history remind one of King James's short method with Dissenters: 'Only hang them, that's all.'

5. The idea of Papal absolutism and Infallibility, like that of the sinlessness of Mary, can be traced to apocryphal origin. It is found first, in the second century, in the pseudo-Clemen-tine Homilies, which contain a singular system of speculative Ebionism, and represent James of Jerusalem, the brother of the Lord, as the Bishop of Bishops, the centre of Christendom, and the general Vicar of Christ, he is the last arbiter, from whom there is no appeal; to him even Peter must give an account of his labors, and to him the sermons of Peter were sent for safe keeping.

In the Catholic Church the same idea, but transferred to the Bishop of Rome, is first clearly expressed in the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, that huge forgery of Papal letters, which appeared in the middle of the ninth century, and had for its


object the completion of the independence of the Episcopal hierarchy from the State, and the absolute power of the Popes, as the legislators and judges of all Christendom. Here the most extravagant claims are put into the mouths of the early Popes, from Clement (91) to Damasus (384), in the barbarous French Latin of the Middle Ages, and with such numerous and glaring anachronisms as the force the conviction of fraud even upon Roman Catholic scholars. One of these sayings is: 'The Roman Church remains to the end free from stain of heresy.' Soon afterwards arose, in the same hierarchical in-terest, the legend of the donation of Constantine and his baptism by Pope Silvester, interpolations of the writings of the Fathers, especially Cyprian and Augustine, and a variety of fictions embodied in the Gesta Liberii and the Liber Ponti-ficalis, and sanctioned by Gratianus (about 1150) in his Decre-tum, or collection of canons, which (as the first part of the Corpus juris canonici) became the code of laws for the whole Western Church, and exerted an extraordinary influence. By this series of pious frauds the mediaeval Papacy, which was the growth of ages, was represented to the faith of the Church

as a primitive institution of Christ, clothed with absolute and perpetual authority.

The Popes since Nicholas I. (858-867), who exceeded all his predecessors in the boldness of his designs, freely used what the spirit of a hierarchical, superstitious, and uncritical age furnished them. They quoted the fictitious letters of their predecessors as genuine, the Sardican canon on appeals as a canon of Nicaea, and the interpolated sixth canon of Nicaea, 'the Roman Church always had the primacy,' of which there is not a syllable in the original; and nobody doubted them. Papal absolutism was in full vigor from Gregory VII. to Boniface VIII. Scholastic divines, even Thomas Aquinas, deceived by these literary forgeries, began to defend Papal absolutism over the whole Church, and the Councils of Lyons (1274) and of Florence (1439) sanctioned it, although the Greeks soon afterwards rejected the false union based upon such assumption.

But absolute power, especially of a spiritual kind, is in-variably intoxicating and demoralizing to any mortal man who possesses it. God Almighty alone can bear it, and even he allows freedom to his rational creatures. The reminiscence of the monstrous period when the Papacy was a football in the hands of bold and dissolute women (904-962), or when mere boys, like Benedict IX. (1033), polluted the Papal crown with the filth of unnatural vices, could not be quite forgotten. The scandal of the Papal schism (1378 to 1409), when two and even three rival Popes excommunicated and cursed each other, and laid all Western Christendom under the ban, excited the moral indignation of all good men in Christen-dom, and called forth, in the beginning of the fifteenth cen-tury, the three Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basle, which loudly demanded a reformation of the Church, in the head as well as in the members, and asserted the superiority of a Council over the Pope.

The Council of Constance (1414-1418), the most numerous ever seen in the West, deposed two Popes-John XXIII. (the infamous Balthasar Cossa, who had been recognized by the majority of the Church), on the charge of a series of crimes (May 29, 1415), and Benedict XIII., as a heretic who sinned against the unity of the Church (July 26, 1417), and elected a new Pope, Martin V. (Nov. 11, 1517), who had given his adhesion to the Council, though after his accession to power he found ways and means to defeat its real object, i. e., the reformation of the Church.

This Council was a complete triumph of the Episcopal system, and the Papal absolutists and Infallibilists are here forced to the logical dilemma of either admitting the validity of the Council, or invalidating the election of Martin V. and his successors. Either course is fatal to their system. Hence there has never been an authoritative decision on the oecumen-


icity of this Council, and the only subterfuge is to say that the whole case is an extraordinary exception; but this, after all, involves the admission that there is a higher power in the Church over the Papacy.

The Reformation shook the whole Papacy to its founda-tion but could not overthrow it. A powerful reaction followed, headed by the Jesuits. Their General, Lainez, strongly ad-vocated Papal Infallibility in the Council of Trent, and de-clared that the Church could not err only because the Pope could not err. But the Council left the question undecided, and the Roman Catechism ascribes infallibility simply to 'the Catholic Church, without defining its seat. Bellarmin advocated and formularized the doctrine, stating it as an almost general opinion that the Pope could not publicly teach a heretical dogma, and as a probable and pious opinion that Providence will guard him even against private heresy. Yet the same Bellarmin was witness to the innumerable blunders of the edition of the Latin Vulgate prepared by Sixtus V., corrected by his own hand, and issued by him as the only true and authentic text of the sacred Scriptures, with the stereotyped forms of anathema upon all who should venture to change a single word; and Bellarmin himself gave the advice that all copies should be called in, and a new edition printed with a lying statement in the preface making the printers the scape-goats for the errors of the Pope! This whole business of the Vulgate is sufficient to explode Papal Infallibility; for it touches the very source of divine revelation. Other Italian divines, like Alphonsus Liguori, and Jesuitical text-books, un-blushingly use long-exploded mediaeval fictions and interpola-tions as a groundwork of Papal absolutism and Infallibility.

It is not necessary to follow the progress of the controversy between the Episcopal and the Papal systems during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It is sufficient to say that the greatest Catholic divines of France and Germany, including Bossuet and Mohler, together with many from other countries, down to the 88 protesting Bishops in the Vatican


Council, were anti-Infallibilists; and that popular Catechisms of the Roman Church, extensively used till 1870, expressly de-nied the doctrine, which is now set up as an article of faith necessary to eternal salvation.

Papal Infallibility and the Bible.

The Old Testament gives no tangible aid to the Infalli-bilists. The Jewish Church existed as a divine institution, and served all its purposes, from Abraham to John the Baptist, without an infallible tribunal in Jerusalem, save the written law and testimony, made effective from time to time by the living voice of inspired prophecy. Pious Israelites found in the Scriptures the way of life, notwithstanding the contradictory interpretations of rabbinical schools and carnal perversions of Messianic prophecies, fostered by a corrupt hierarchy. The Urim and Thummim of the High-Priest has no doubt symbolical reference to some kind of spiritual illumi-nation or oracular consultation, but it is of too uncertain interpretation to furnish an. argument.

The passages of the New Testament which are used by Roman divines in support of the doctrine of Infallibility may be divided into two classes: those which seem to favor the Episcopal or Gallican, and those which are made to prove the Papal or Ultramontane theory. It is characteristic that the Papal Infallibilists carefully avoid the former.

1. To the first class belong John xiv 16 sq.; xvi. 13-16, where Christ promises the Holy Ghost to his disciples that he may 'abide with them forever,' teach them 'all things,' bring to their remembrance all he had said to them, and guide them 'into the whole truth;' John xx. 21: 'As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you. . . . Receive ye the Holy Ghost;' Matt, xviii. 18: 'Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,' etc.; Matt, xxviii. 19, 20: 'Go and disciple all nations . . . and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.'


These passages, which are addressed to all Apostles alike, to doubting Thomas as well as to Peter, prove indeed the unbroken presence of Christ and the Holy Ghost in the Church to the end of time, which is one of the most precious and glorious truths admitted by every true Christian. But, in the first place, the Church, which is here represented by the Apostles, embraces all true believers, laymen as well as Bishops. Secondly, the promise of Christ's presence implies no infalli-bility, for the same promise is given even to the smallest number of true believers (Matt, xviii 20). Thirdly, if the pas-sages prove infallibility at all, they would prove individual infallibility by continued inspiration rather than corporate infallibility by official succession; for every Apostle was in-spired, and so far infallible; and this no Roman Catholic Bishop, though claiming to be a successor of the Apostles, pretends to be.

2. The passages quoted by the advocates of the Papal theory are three, viz., Luke xxii. 31; Matt. xvi. 18; John xxi. 15.

We admit, at the outset, that these passages in their ob-vious meaning, which is confirmed by the history of the Apostolic Church, assign to Peter a certain primacy among the Apostles: he was the leader and spokesman of them, and the chief agent of Christ in laying the foundations of his Church among the Jews and the Gentiles. This is signifi-cantly prophesied in the new name of Peter given to him. The history of Pentecost (Acts ii.) and the conversion of Cornelius (Acts x.) are the fulfillment of this prophecy, and furnish the key to the interpretation of the passages in the Gospels.

This is the truth which underlies the colossal lie of the Papacy. For there is no Romish error which does not derive its life and force from some truth. But beyond this we have no right to go. The position which Peter occupied no one can occupy after him. The foundation of the Church, once laid, is laid for all time to come, and the gates of Hades can


not prevail against it. The New Testament is its own best interpreter. It shows no single example of an exercise of jurisdiction of Peter over the other Apostles, but the very reverse. He himself, in his Epistles, disowns and prophetically warns his fellow-presbyters against the hierarchical spirit; ex-horting them, instead of being lords over God's heritage, to be ensamples to his flock (1 Pet. v. 1-4). Paul and John were perfectly independent of him, as the Acts and Epistles prove. Paul even openly administered to him a rebuke at Antioch. At the Council of Jerusalem James seems to have presided, at all events he proposed the compromise which was adopted by the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren; Peter was indeed one of the leading speakers, but he significantly advocated the truly evangelical principle of salvation by faith alone, and protested against human bondage (Acts xv.; comp. Gal. ii.).

The great error of the Papacy is that it perverts a primacy of honor into a supremacy of jurisdiction, a personal privilege into an official prerogative, and a priority of time into a permanent superiority of rank. And to make the above pas-sage at all available for such purpose, it must take for granted, as intervening links of the argument, that which can not be proved from the New Testament nor from history, viz., that Peter was Bishop of Rome; that he was there as Paul's superior; that he appointed a successor, and transferred to him his pre-rogatives.

As to the passages separately considered, Matt, xvi., 'Thou art rock,' and John xxi., 'Feed my flock,' could at best only prove Papal absolutism, but not Papal Infallibility, of which they do not treat. The former teaches the indestructibility of the Church in its totality (not of any individual congregation), but this is a different idea. The Council of Trent lays down 'the unanimous consent of the Fathers' as the norm and rule of all orthodox interpretation, as if exegetical wisdom had begun and ended with the divines of the first six centuries. But of the passage Matt, xvi., which is more frequently quoted by Popes and Papists than any other passage in the Bible,


there are no less than five different patristic interpretations; the rock on which Christ built his Church being referred to Christ by sixteen Fathers (including Augustine); to the faith or confession of Peter by forty-four (including Chrysostom, Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, and Augustine again); to Peter pro-fessing the faith by seventeen; to all the Apostles, whom Peter represented by his primacy, by eight; to all the faithful, who, believing in Christ as the Son of God, are constituted the living stones of the Church. But not one of the Fathers finds Papal Infallibility in this passage, nor in John xxi. The 'unanimous consent of the Fathers' is a pure fiction, except in the most general and fundamental principles held by all Christians; and not to interpret the Bible except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, would strictly mean not to interpret it at all.

There remains, then, only the passage recorded by Luke

(xxii. 31, 32) as at all bearing on the disputed question: 'Simon, Simon, behold, Satan desired to have you (or, ob-tained you by asking), that he may sift you as wheat; but I prayed for thee, that they faith fail not; and thou, when once thou art converted (or, hast turned again), strengthen thy brethren.' But even this does not prove infallibility, and has not been so understood before Popes Leo I. and Agatho. For (1) the passage refers, as the context shows, to the peculiar personal history of Peter during the dark hour of passion, and is both a warning and a comfort to him. So it is explained by the Fathers, who frequently quote it. (2) Faith here, as nearly always in the New Testament, means personal trust in, and attachment to, Christ, and not, as the Romish Church misinterprets it, orthodoxy, or intellectual assent to dogmas. (3) If the passage refers to the Popes at all, it would prove too much for them, viz., that they, like Peter, denied the Saviour, were converted again, and strengthened their brethren-which may be true enough of some, but certainly not of all.

The constant appeal of the Roman Church to Peter sug-gests a significant parallel. There is a spiritual Peter and a carnal Simon, who are separated, indeed, by regeneration, yet, after all, not so completely that the old nature does not occasionally re-appear in the new man.

It was the spiritual Peter who forsook all to follow Christ; who first confessed him as the Son of God, and hence was called Rock; who after his terrible fall wept bitterly; was re-instated and intrusted with the care of Christ's sheep; who on the birthday of the Church preached the first missionary sermon, and gathered in the three thousand converts; who in the Apostles' Council protested against the narrow bigotry of the Judaizers, and stood up with Paul for the principle of salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ; who, in his Epistles, warns all ministers against hierarchical pride, and exhibits a wonderful meekness, gentleness, and humility of spirit, showing that divine grace had overruled and sanctified to him even his fall; and who followed at last his Master to the cross of martyrdom.

It was the carnal Simon whopresumedtodivert his Lord from the path of suffering, and drew on him the rebuke, 'Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art a stumbling-block unto me, for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men;' the Simon, who in mistaken zeal used the sword and cut off the ear of Malchus; who proudly boasted of his un-swerving fidelity to his Master, and yet a few hours afterwards denied him thrice before a servant-woman; who even after the Pentecostal illumination was overcome by his natural weak-ness, and, from policy or fear of the Judaizing party, was un-true to his better conviction, so as to draw on him the public rebuke of the younger Apostle of the Gentiles. The Romish legend of Domine quo vadis makes him relapse into his in-constancy even a day before his martyrdom, and memorializes it in a chapel outside of Rome.


The reader may judge whether the history of the Popes reflects more the character of the spiritual Peter or the carnal Simon. If the Apostolic Church prophetically anticipates and foreshadows the whole course of Christian history, the tem-porary collision of Peter, the Apostle of the circumcision, and Paul, the Apostle of the uncircumcision, at Antioch, is a significant type of the antagonism between Romanism and Protestantism, between the Church of the binding law and the Church of the free gospel.


A Series of Addresses Delivered in the Music Hall, Houston, Texas, in January 1946, Refuting the Dogmas of Roman Catholicism and the Doctrines of Protestant Denominationalism




The Certified Gospel and God's Prophetic Word Co-author, Neal-Wallace Discussion


Copyrighted 1951 By Foy E. Wallace Jr. All Rights Reserved


Pages Author's Preface ........................................ ............ .......... iv Chapter One: The Legalism Of The Gospel........................ 1-24 Chapter Two: The How And The What Of Bible Baptism...25-109 Chapter Three: The Security Of The Believer-Is it Possible

For A Child Of God To Fall Away And Be Lost?.....110-165 Chapter Four: Spiritual Influence-What The Holy Spirit Does And How It Is Done....................................... 166-225 Chapter Five: Innovation In The Church-An Examination Of The Instrumental Music Question........................226-294 Chapter Six: Bulwarks Of The Faith-Or, The Things Which Cannot Be Moved................................. ........595-337 SUPPLEMENT: An Addenda On The Erroneous Doctrines Of The Baptist Church............................................ 338-395


The protestant denomination known as the Baptists are the boldest people of all the so-called "orthodox denominations" in pressing their peculiar tenets, and they are perhaps the most flourishing. In some states in the Union they are in control of state and municipal government by influence, and vie with Roman Catholicism in their reach for political power. The growth of the Baptists, as a religious body, during the past quarter of a century is due to two factors. First, abandoning on the whole their previous practice of polemics-defending their specific doctrines in debate; for it is a well known fact that the Baptist church has never gained any ground in public debate. Second, their determination to press Baptist claims by the con-stant, incessant and indefatigable preaching of Baptist doctrine in pulpit and press. This they have done. Baptist preachers are preaching Baptist doctrine. Baptist editors are teaching Baptist doctrine. Baptist seminaries are disseminating Baptist doctrine. Baptist members are talking Baptist doctrine. Baptist bookstores are selling Baptist doctrine.

All of this should be an object lesson to many in the churches of Christ who have been disposed to relent in the straightforward name-calling plain preaching which character-ized the early preachers, who brought the church to us on this continent, and made it strong. While Baptist preachers are preaching Baptist doctrine, and their educators are inculcating "Baptist usage" into their students; many of the preachers in the churches of Christ are delivering literary declamations and "smooth and fair" speeches; and educators in the church, operating "Christian colleges" are not indoctrinating students and young preachers, but are rather minimizing, even criticizing, the gospel preachers who refute false teaching and condemn the denominations that teach the false doctrines.

The present volume, Bulwarks Of The Faith-Part Two, refutes the theological errors of various protestant denomina-tions, but because the Baptists as a body have been the boldest antagonists of the truth in the polemic field during the past quarter century, the weight of these exposures has been directed against their teachings and practices. The mildness of Method-ism and the passivity of Presbyterianism have been the marked attitudes of these bodies toward controversy in recent decades, while Episcopalianism is too far entrenched in the ecclesiasticism of the High Church of England-it being the American branch of the High Church-to be controversial. But the Baptists are blatant. They boast of their fundamentalism while denying the very fundamentals of the gospel, even to the repudiation of the commission of Christ to his apostles as recorded in Mark 16. As a religious democracy they have been less restricted by their own formal creed than other protestant bodies; and their preachers, though crusading for "Baptist usage" as set forth in the Baptist Manual, have had more freedom from restraints than some other systems of ecclesiastical control. This democ-racy has apparently made the Baptists bold, and their own conventions have failed to control insurgents, which is the reason whythere are somanybrands of Baptists. Some of the off-brands among them are about the only ones left who are willing to engage in the public debates that were so common a genera-tion ago between churches of Christ and Baptist churches. But the Baptists, who are genuine Baptists, are yet controversial to the core-and that is why the erroneous doctrines of the Baptist church must continue to be exposed from the pulpit and in the press, if not on the polemic platform for the lack of opportunity, as once was the order of the day.

It is the hope of the author that the discussions in this volume may revive in hundreds of young men today the spirit of the early preachers who brought the church to our part of the world; that they may be alerted to the need of militant preaching; to the necessity for the indoctrination of the present generation of complacent church members; and aroused from the indifferentism which has more or less characterized the '' de-votional" complex of these later years; to forthrightly "preach the word," for the time has come-whether the particular time that Paul meant or not-when "they will not endure sound doctrine." The only cure for these attitudes, and the condi-tions resulting from such, is the constant preaching of the doctrine in "sound words which cannot be condemned," that the church may be preserved "unto our children and unto our children's children" for all generations to come-for God has so ordained it.




The subjects that have been handled in this meeting are weighty, dealing with issues of vast importance to the church, to society, to all individuals, young or old, great or small. I have felt an appreciation of your interest in them, and your forbearance with me in the extra time required to discuss them.

The subjects that have had to do with denominational dogmas and doctrines involve issues and controversies that have been debated through the years; but concerning which the younger generation has not had the advantage of the thorough indoctrination, such as had our fathers before us, under the early preachers of the church, preachers under whom some of you were reared, and under whose preaching I was tutored. They indoctrinated us. We knew what it was all about. I am firmly convinced that the rising generation should have the opportunity of hearing these issues thoroughly discussed and debated, that they may be anchored to the truth and able to meet "every wind of doctrine" in modern forms of error.

I was brought up under the preaching of men in Texas well known to many of you, who baptized many more peo-ple than are being baptized today; men who debated; men who "called names," whether in the polemics of debate or preaching in the pulpit. They were men of fervor and faith. We should not forget their crusading spirit. I want to see their spirit revived. Like the spirit of Elijah in John the Baptist, and the spirit of Huss in Luther, I want to see the spirit of the early gospel preachers revived in the young men of today. They put power in their preaching. They moved


men. They did not preach sermonettes; they were not preach-erettes.

I can remember when preachers wore cuffs attached to the sleeve by a device of some sort, stiffly laundered cuffs. That way the preacher could wear the same shirt the whole meeting, just change the cuffs! In these difficult days of the rationing of laundry it would be rather convenient for that system to be in vogue. But some of the early preachers preached with such force that they would send a stiffly laundered cuff sailing out over the crowd! It is a bold con-trast with some of the milquetoast elocution heard in pulpits today.

A young man once came to A. J. McCarty, and asked him how to go about making a preacher. Jack McCarty said, in all the bluntness that characterized him, "Young man, get brimful and running over with the word of God and it will come out"! And it will come out. It may be spontan-eous combustion, but it will "bust" everything it hits. That is the preaching needed today, rather than this "go away around by the Joneses" sort of a preaching; this speak softly, tread lightly, step carefully, kind of preaching. I do not be-lieve in croaking out insults against people, but I do believe in the kind of preaching that draws the issue, and draws the blood when the occasion requires it. The purpose of this meeting has simply been to call us back to these old principles.

I read to you now from the ninth chapter of Hebrews, a few verses. "And for this cause he is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called may receive the promise of an eternal in-heritance. For where a testament is there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead, otherwise it is of no strength at all, while the testator liveth"-that is the reading of Heb. 9:15-17.

We hear much of the grace of God. I believe in the grace of God. I could not believe otherwise; I have been the recipient of his grace. We are saved by grace, but if that means grace alone it would exclude faith, and numerous other things by which the Bible declares we are saved. We could not be saved by grace only if we are saved by faith also. If saved by faith only, salvation could not come by repentance also. The Bible says we are saved by faith, by repentance, by the good confession, by the blood, by his life, and by baptism. Add the word "only" to any of these things and you have interpolated false teaching into the text of God's word. Let us study the relation of grace, faith and obedience to the gospel.



The legalism of the gospel does not destroy the grace of God. The apostle approaches the gospel through the illustra-tion of a legal will, in the text just read. "Where a test-ament is there must of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: and it doth never avail while he that made it liveth." When a man makes a will, does the fact that he names certain conditions in the will, upon which his estate is to be administered to the individuals named in the will as beneficiaries, destroy the grace of the testator who made it? Conditions in the will do not destroy grace. The grace of the testator is in his will; it is the grace of the testator that made the will; the will is the product of his grace; and the fact that he named certain conditions upon which the benefits of that will are to be administered, does not vitiate the grace of the testator in the will. Conditions are not incompatible with grace. So it is with the question of salvation. The fact that God has con-ditioned salvation on certain acts of faith and obedience does not vitiate his grace. The gospel is not incompatible with grace.


(1) A legal illustration.

In Heb. 9:15-17 the apostle compares the gospel to a legal will. God put his grace in a will, a testament. It is Paul's illustration of the legalism of the gospel.

In the chapter following, Heb. 10:9-10, the apostle said, "He taketh away the first that he may establish the second, by the which will we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Now, in the ninth chap-ter he refers to the gospel as a "testament," here he uses the word "will." Two wills cannot operate at the same time; two wills cannot be in force at the same time. So Paul said he took away the first to establish the second. The old had to cease in order that the new might exist. The old dispen-sation closed, the new dispensation opened. The old cove-nant died, the new covenant was born. The old law was abrogated, the new was inaugurated. The old testament was annulled. The new testament was enacted.

(2) The end of the law.

The new covenant is a system of grace, it reveals the grace of God. The old covenant was strictly a matter of law; grace did not characterize the old testament. It is said in Romans 10:4 that "Christ is the end of the law for right-eousness to every one that believeth" that is, Christ accom-plished the purpose of the law in order to righteousness. There are many, many passages that teach the law ended, but in this particular passage, Paul is emphasizing rather that the purpose of the law, in respect to righteousness, was fulfilled, or accomplished in the gospel. The word "end" here does not mean termination. It means purpose, design, the end in view. For instance, Solomon said that God "cre-ated all things unto its own end"-not its own termination, but unto its own purpose, its own design. Paul said, "the end of the commandment is love out of a pure heart." The com-mandment does not terminate with love, but love is the pur-pose of the commandment. Peter said, "receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls"-that is, re-ceiving the end that faith serves, the salvation of the soul. Then, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness"-Christ accomplished the purpose which the law had in view, but could not accomplish.

What was the purpose of the law? Righteousness was * its purpose. But it could not accomplish it-why? Because if a man sinned once under the law, he could not be forgiven. The law offered no provision for forgiveness. Therefore, in order to be righteous under the law a man would have had to keep the law perfectly. If a man had kept the law per-fectly, had never sinned, not once, he would have been right-eous under the law. But having sinned once under the law, he could become righteous only by forgiveness, and the law provided no grace and offered no forgiveness.

Righteousness means justification; it means forgiveness. Since the law provided for no forgiveness, it could not make one righteous. Take the passage in Rom. 8:4: "The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us"-that is, the righteousness which the law sought, but could not obtain, was fulfilled in Christ, in the gospel, in the new dispensation.

There are only two ways by which a person can be right-eous: first, never having sinned, innocence; second, having sinned to be forgiven. Take a garment, a handkerchief, it can be clean in two ways; never having been soiled, or hav-ing been soiled, to be washed. If washed it is as clean as ever. I have had them washed when they were not-but if thoroughly washed they are clean, clean as ever. There are two ways in which a person can be righteous: never having sinned; or having sinned to be forgiven. Now, the law of Moses could not forgive, therefore, the law of Moses could not make man righteous. Christ came to accomplish that end -to make men righteous.


(3) The righteousness of God. With what has been said in mind let us now read Rom.

1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that be-lieveth, to the Jew first and also to the Greek; for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith, as it is written the just shall live by faith." The gospel reveals the righteousness of God-that is, God's forgiveness. The righteousness of God here is not an attribute of God. The gospel reveals "the righteousness of God," but the gospel does not reveal that God is righteous. The Jews knew that God is a righteous being. But Paul said that the Jews were "ig-norant of God's righteousness and went about to set up their own righteousness," and would not "submit to the righteous-ness of God." The Jews were not ignorant that God is a righteous being. They knew that God is righteous-but they were ignorant of God's righteousness. The Jews were ignor-ant of how God makes man righteous, of God's plan of right-eousness. They were ignorant of how God justifies the sinner. God makes the sinner righteous by forgiveness, and the Jews were ignorant of how God forgives sinners, therefore they were ignorant of God's righteousness. It is God's righteous-ness because he gives that righteousness, because it comes from God, he imparts it, he gives it. But he gives it upon certain conditions, and the gospel reveals the conditions upon which God forgives man, therefore the gospel reveals the righteousness of God, imparted to the man.

But it says, "from faith to faith." That is, by faith in order to faith. Now note the quotation, "Even as it is writ-ten, the just shall live by faith." The phrase by faith, modi-fies the noun "just" instead of the verb "live." Transposing the sentence it reads "the just by faith, shall live." Paul was teaching the Jews how to become just. The Jews thought they were made just by the law, that justification came from the law, that righteousness came by the law. Paul said, no, the sinner is made just by faith, not by the law-the just by faith shall live-the one who is saved, the one who "lives," is one who is justified by faith, not one who thinks he is made just by the law.

(4) Justification by faith through faith.

Justification by faith is the same thing as righteousness by the gospel-faith here means the gospel. Read with me from Rom. 3:27: "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay; but by the law of faith. Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith with-out the deeds of the law." So he uses the word faith in the sense of "the law of faith." Therefore faith is a law-the law of faith-faith is a law. When Paul refers to justification by faith, he means salvation by that law of faith, which is the gospel.

Continuing Paul says: "Is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles also? Yes, of the Gentiles also; seeing it is one God which shall justify the circum-cision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith." Now, what is the difference in justifying the Jew "by" faith and justifying a Gentile "through" faith. The issue between Paul and the Jews was the circumcision of the Gentiles. The Jews wanted to bind circumcision on the Gentile Christians. They were willing for the Gentiles to obey the gospel, but insisted on their circumcision in addition to the gospel-the gospel plus circumcision, they insisted. The Jew's argument meant that Gentiles who obeyed the gospel were still not saved with-out circumcision-"except ye be circumcised ye cannot be saved." Paul's argument was that it does not take the gospel plus circumcision to save a Gentile. Even the Jew was justi-fied by faith, not by his circumcision. The fact that a Jew had been circumcised was not the thing that saved him. The gospel saved him, faith was the agent of his justification, not circumcision. But the Gentile is justified "through" faith; that is, his justification was completed in faith, circumcision was not necessary to justify him. The Gentile was justified "through" faith, his justification was completed in faith with-


out circumcision,or anycustom of thelaw,added toit. Thus Paul showed that the Jew and Gentile alike were saved by faith, by the gospel, by the new law, without any af-fixes, suffixes or prefixes, or any other "fixes," of the law of Moses-simply the gospel of Jesus Christ. "By faith"- the agent of justification to the Jew. "Through faith"-the process completed, finished in faith, without anything added to it-to the Gentile.

Reverting then to Rom. 1:17: "For therein is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith." It has been sug-gested that the expression "from faith to faith" means from the faith of the old covenant to the faith of the new covenant. There is nothing in the context to bear out that construction. The word "from" is also rendered "by" in the Greek text, and "to" comes from the preposition "eis." In other words- righteousness by faith "eis" faith-righteousness by faith in order to faith. When Paul preached to the Jew that righteousness comes from faith, not from the law, it was in order to faith-in order to induce faith in the Jewish hearer. How could Paul better produce faith in the heart of a Jew than to show the Jew that righteousness comes from faith, not from the law? So when Paul preached righteousness "from faith" to the Jew, it was "in order to faith" in the Jews that they might receive the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel.

(5) The law of sin and death.

There is another passage to which I wish to call attention before I pass-Rom. 8:1-4: "There is therefore now no con-demnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit." There are three laws mentioned here. First, the law of the spirit of life; second, the law of sin and death; third, the law of Moses.

It has been said that "the law of sin and death" was the law of Moses. We hear it said that the law of Moses was the law of sin, because it could not save from sin, and the law of death because it could not impart life. It is true that the law of Moses could not save from sin and could not impart life. But the law of sin and death is not the law of Moses. The law of the spirit of life, the gospel, makes one free from the law of sin and death. What the law (the law of Moses) could not do, God sent his Son to do, through the gospel. So the law of Moses could not make free from the law of sin and death. Law No. 1-the gospel-makes us free from law No. 2 (sin and death), which is the thing law No. 3 could not do. Now, if "the law of sin and death" is the law of Moses, since Paul said the law of Moses could not make us free from the law of sin and death, Paul would be saying that the law of Moses cannot make us free from the law of Moses-a form of rhetoric Paul would not use.

What is the law of sin and death? It is mentioned in Rom.

7:23. Paul mentioned the law of the mind, which is at war with the law of sin in our members. The law of the mind is the law of God, addressed to the mind. It is not, as some think, a sort of an independent law of one's own mind, every man's mind his own law. The law of the mind is God's law, but is referred to as the law of the mind because God's law is addressed to the mind, it pertains to the mind. The law of sin is the rule of sin. Now the law of Moses cannot make us free from the rule of sin; the law of Moses cannot free one from the rule of sin in him. But the gospel can and does make us free from the rule of sin. So Christ came to do the thing that the law could not do-to save us from the rule of sin, and its result, death, and to impart righteousness by the gospel. But the gospel must be obeyed-and that is the legalism of the gospel.




Let us now discuss the gospel as a will and testament. All of us know enough about the making of a will to know that no will is operative during the lifetime of a man who makes it. The will becomes effective after the death of the testator, not before. Therefore, according to Paul's illus-tration, the will of Christ went into effect after, and not be-fore the death of Christ.

(1) The old and new covenants.

In Romans 7:4, the apostle said the wife is bound unto the husband as long as she lives, but if the husband is dead, she is free to marry another, and added, "wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to me law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." A woman cannot be subject to two husbands, and we cannot be under two covenants. One must go. A wife cannot live in relation to two husbands, and Christians cannot hold relation to both covenants. One must go. The vicarious death of Christ released us from the law; through his death, we became dead to the law, and being married to Christ we are subjects of the new covenant.

Some one will say "I want all of the Bible," but Paul says you cannot have both covenants. You must give up one of them-which will you give up, the old one or the new? You cannot have them both-if you give up the new one, you become a Judaizer, "severed from Christ" and "fallen from grace"-Gal. 5:4. Will you sever yourself from Christ, or will you give up the old covenant and become a subject of the new will and testament of Jesus Christ?

It is a question, friends, of the dividing line-before and after the death of Christ. Let me draw the cross on the board. On this side we have theOld Testament,on that side the New Testament-the old and the new, number one and number two.

Now Paul says, "he taketh away the first"-No. 1-that he may establish the second-No. 2.

Pardon me for moving this "mike" around, I cannot preach and stand still, and I want to preach so that some of you cannot sit still! And I want to write on this board. You may not be able to read it-but I can, if I read it soon enough after I write it! Before the cross, the will, or testament, is in force. Before and after-do you locate yourself-on which side of the cross are you located? If you say before, then you take the old, give up the new. If you say after, then you surrender the old and accept the new. That is Paul's argument on the will.

(2) Serving in the gospel.

But when people go back to the Old Testament for any religious practice, it always results in a sort of a religious off-shoot. Paul says, Rom. 1:9, that we serve God "in the gospel of his Son." In 2 Cor. 3:6 he said that he was an "able minister of the new covenant," and not of the old. The Adventist cannot get sabbath-keeping in the gospel of his Son, so he goes back to the old covenant for it. The Catholic cannot get incense burning "in the gospel of his Son," so he goes back to the Old Testament for it. The Paedo-baptist- Methodist, Episcopalian, Lutheran, all who practice baby baptism-paedo-baptism, baby membership-they cannot get baby membership "in the gospel of his Son," and they want their infants in the church, so they go back to the old Jewish institution to get them. The Mormons want polygamy, a plurality of wives, which they cannot get "in the gospel of his Son," so they go back to David and Solomon for it. And the Christian Church member wants his mechanical music in the church, and he cannot get it "in the gospel of his Son," so he goes back to David after it. So what do we have? The offshoots of Judaism!

The Adventist loves his sabbath, and he brings it over. The Catholic loves his incense, so he brings it over. The Methodist loves his infants, and he brings them over. The Mormons love-their women!-so they just charter a car and bring over a load. The Christian Church preacher loves his music, and he brings it over! How much better is he than the rest of them? No better-not as good. He preaches the dif-ference between the covenants, and the others do not. He is inconsistent with his own doctrine. If the Christian Church preacher argues with a Sabbatarian, he will not let him bring over the sabbath; he will not let the Catholic bring over his incense; he will not let the Methodist bring over his infant; he will not let the Mormon bring over his women; but when he wants his music, what does he do? If I had a blackboard a few feet longer I would show you-he takes a running start, jumps "clean over the cross" and lands over there in the middle of David's goat pen, where he kept his animal sacrifices; and his harem, where he kept his women, and digs out an old dusty, rusty, musty, lusty, Jewish harp, puts it in the church, and shouts "let us walk in the ways of David"!

Now that is what I mean by religious off-shoots-the off-shoots of Judaism.

(3) Sanctified by the will. The text of Heb. 10:10 reads: "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second, by the which will we are sanctified." By the what which? By the which will-the second covenant, the new will, by which we are sanctified. There is nothing in the Old Testament that sanctifies or is sanctified for God's service. On the making of the will-what does it take to make a will? First, it requires a testator, the man who makes it. Second, it requires a gift, something to bestow or bequeath. Third, it requires conditions upon which the will is to be administered. Fourth, it requires the death of the testator, the death of the man who makes the will. Fifth, it requires probation. The will is probated after the death of the maker, probation simply means, as I understand it, to approve, the approval of the court, a will must be approved by the court -probated, approved. Sixth, it requires the executors; after probation the will passes to the administrators. Seventh, it

requires heirs, or the beneficiaries, the individuals who receive the bequests.

Paul presents the gospel as a will. Christ is the testator; salvation is the gift; the commands of the gospel are the con-ditions; the death of Jesus Christ is necessary to put the will into effect; after the death of the testator the will was probated by Jesus Christ, who ascended to heaven to appear before the throne of God for us, and in the courts of heaven the will was approved and sealed with heaven's authority; the twelve apostles were the executors, receiving on Pentecost "power from on high" to qualify them as executors to execute the probated will of heaven; and all who obey the conditions of the new will become heirs of heaven's estate, salvation.

But here is another thing to consider: During the life time of the testator, the will is not in force; the testator, there-fore, can do what he pleases with what he has; but after the death of the testator, the only way he can dispense the blessings of his estate is through an instrument called his will.


So, during the life of Jesus Christ, during his personal min-istry, he blessed men upon various conditions; but after the death of Jesus Christ, he blesses men only upon the conditions of his will. While he was a living testator he had power on the earth, and at his own discretion, under various circum-stances, he blessed men. But after Jesus died on the cross, probated his will in heaven and placed it in the hands of his executors to administer, no one receives remission of sins without complying with the terms of the will, the commands of the gospel. It is a question of law-before and after the will -what does the will say?

There are numerous cases of how Jesus blessed men dur-ing his personal life on earth-the palsied man; Zachaeus, the publican; the woman who was a harlot; and the thief on the cross-but these cases do not apply to us because the testator was living, and the dispensation of his blessings to men during his lifetime were outside the terms of the will, which had not become operative. Show me a case where men were promised or received pardon, remission of sins or salvation, after the death of Christ, except on the terms of the gospel, and you will have a point-but until you can do so and until you do, you have no point.



There is a stock question on this point. Every time Mark 16:16 is quoted-"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"-somebody chirps, "What about the thief on the cross?" You know, "there's one in every office" and "they'll do it every time"! What about the thief on the cross?-as though there is something about the thief on the cross that makes the statement of Christ in Mark 16 untrue. What Jesus said is true, regardless of thieves on or off the cross.

(1) The petition of the penitent thief.

I wish to adapt here a discussion of the dying robber and his petition by J. W. McGarvey, from his book Biblical Criticism:

"This man hath done nothing amiss." One of the most remarkable speeches on record is that of the dying robber, addressed partly to his fellow-robber, and partly to Jesus. To the former he said, "Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou art in the same con-demnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss." How did he know that Jesus had done nothing amiss? He could not have learned it as Pilate did, by the course of his trial, for this the robber had not heard; neither had he heard a full account of it. He could not have learned it from the demeanor of Jesus, since the three had been led out together and crucified; for this, remarkable as it was, could not prove that his past life was blameless. He could not have learned it easily after his own arrest and imprisonment; for it is not likely that any friend of Jesus had interviewed him. The only probable supposition is that he had learned it before his own imprisonment.

While engaged in his nefarious business as a robber, it would suit his plans to mingle with the crowds gathered around Jesus in order to pick out men to rob on their way to their homes; and in this way he would hear Jesus and witness his miracles. He would hear, also, the accusations of the Pharisees, and witness their refutation. Like the publicans and harlots, he would readily believe that this man had done nothing amiss.

It is not improbable that, under the influence of Jesus, he had abandoned his life as a robber, and had begun to lead a better life before his detection and arrest. In this case his conviction that Jesus had done nothing amiss would be deep and strong, and would need only a suitable occasion to call forth an expression of it. All this helps to account for his speech; for although, when first suspended on the cross, he joined with his fellow in reproaching Jesus, being irritated because his crucifixion was the occasion of crucifying them the same day, the remembrance of what he knew of Jesus accounts for his speedy repentance. As he drew near to the presence of God, he felt ashamed of reproaching one whose life had been free from misdeeds, and he spoke out in his defense.

"When thou comest into thy kingdom." This clause is the appeal that the dying robber made to the dying Jesus is even more re-markable than, "this man hath done nothing amiss." How could he believe that Jesus would yet come in his kingdom, when he saw


himhanging to the cross and about to die? This belief had perished out of the hearts of all the disciples of Jesus. Their hopes respecting the kingdom were all crushed in abject despair when the sentence of death was pronounced by Pilate. Even Judas, who may possibly have hoped that Jesus would escape from those to whom he had sold him, when he heard of the sentence, was so overwhelmed with remorse and despair that he dared not live to witness the end. How, then, could this robber still cling to the belief that Jesus would yet come into his kingdom? He was the only living way, so far as we can know, who still clung to this belief. Was it because he had evi-dences which the apostles had not-information which they had not received? It would be preposterous to think that he had. Was it because he alone of all men had the true conception of the king-dom, that conception which we now enjoy, and which the apostles enjoyed and taught after the next Pentecost? Was it because he believed that Jesus would rise from the dead, and had already conceived the idea which his actual resurrection afterward im-parted to his disciples, that he would then, as victor over death, proclaim and establish a military dominion? Jesus had said so little about his resurrection that even the apostles did not expect it, and it is highly improbable that this robber had even heard of his predictions of that event. What, then, was it that imparted to the soul of the robber this remarkable belief, and that kept it alive even when Jesus was dying?

Is it necessary to look any further for the answer than to what he had himself heard from the lips of Jesus? He could bear witness to the blameless life which Jesus had led, he had witnessed the miracles by which Jesus demonstrated that he had come on a mission from God, and he knew that the chief burden of the great Teacher's preaching was the kingdom of heaven which he was to set up. Being free from the prepossessions which biased the minds of Pharisees and scribes as to the nature of the kingdom, he be-lieved that as such a man as Jesus could not lie or be deceived, the kingdom in some shape or form, and at some time, and in some place would certainly be established. So, when at last he who had made these solemn predictions and promises was passing through the agonies of death, the robber still believed, that in time, he knew not when, in some place, he knew not where, and in some form, he knew not what, the kingdom would appear. It was a sublime faith in the pledged word of Jesus, a faith which neither life nor death could unsettle, that brought forth the wondrous words:: "When thou comest into thy kingdom." What a rebuke this to the faith of many thousands who now stagger at little obstacles, falter in the presence of obscure texts of Scripture, turn pale at the "opposition


of science falselyso called," and deny the Lord rather than suffer with him.

"Remember Me." Not the least remarkable of all that the dying robber said is his appeal to the dying Lord, "Jesus, when thou comest into thy kingdom, remember me." And why remember him? Why remember a dying robber who with his latest words, while suspended on the cross, confessed that he was receiving the "due reward of his deeds"? If Jesus should come in his kingdom, and should have control over the destiny of such a man, why should the latter wish to be remembered by him? Why did he not pray to be forgotten? Why did he not say, "Pray forget that you ever met with a guilty wretch like me. Let me drop into oblivion, and not be numbered among those with whom thou shalt deal"? For if Jesus should remember him, what could he do but send him to perdition?

But evidently the robber used the word "remember" in a pregnant sense. He used it as a wife does when her husband is starting on a long journey: "Husband, remember me; don't forget me." He used it as a beggar does, who says to a benevolent friend, "When you make your Christmas presents, remember me;" or as a con-demned criminal, who appeals to the Governor, "When you exercise your pardoning power, remember me." He wanted to be remembered in mercy; to be remembered as one who, though he had spoken unkind words in anger, had soon repented of them, and rebuked the continuous revilings of his companion. To be remembered as the one who, when governor and, priest and scribe and all the rabble were crying out against him, was the only man in all that multitude who had said, "This man has done nothing amiss." It was no time for qualifying words, or for giving reasons. The appeal was a despairing, and yet a slightly hopeful call, in the briefest words, to one who would understand all that was meant.

And now look again at this man's faith. He not only believes, contrary to the expectation of every other living man, that this dying Jesus will yet come in his kingdom, but that when he comes, he will be able to do something for wretches like himself after they shall have expiated their crimes by death on the cross. What that something was he did not fully or clearly understand, but scarcely had the words escaped his lips until he hears through the labored breathing of Jesus the surprising words, "To-day thou shalt be with me in paradise." And what words did Jesus ever utter so surprising as these? How strange that the first man of all whom he had known on earth to be with him in paradise, should be a crucified robber! This most exceptional instance of salvation from sin is


worthy of deeper reflection and profounder study than it has yet received.

One more remark: If those are right who teach, by a mis-Interpretation of a passage in Peter's first Epistle, that Jesus spent the time between his death and his resurrection preaching to lost souls in Hades, then it follows that he promised his company to the wrong robber when he died. Instead of saying to the penitent robber, "To-day thou shalt be with me in paradise," he should have said to the impenitent one, "To-day I shall be with thee among the spirits in prison."

The thief "on the cross" may have been a backsliding Israelite and was being dealt with accordingly. He could have been a backsliding disciple of John. It is even possible for him to have been a backsliding disciple of Jesus. Some disciples of Christ have turned thieves since he died, and likely some turned thieves before he died. Some have de-serted him after the cross, and likely some deserted him be-fore the cross. Whether he was a backsliding Israelite, whether he was a wayward disciple of John, or a sinning disciple of Jesus during his personal ministry, we know not; and so far as the issue is concerned, we care not. Jesus said; "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise."

(2) The place called paradise.

Some months ago an article was published in the Bible Banner from the effective pen of W. Curtis Porter, in reply to a fallacious argument on "the thieves on the crosses" made by a brother in a sermon, which was afterward printed in his paper. His discussion of the thieves, their sayings, and the Lord's statement about paradise, represents my own views so fully that I submit Brother Porter's argument here in the place of my own comments on the points involved.

An appeal was made to the gospel records of Matthew, Mark and Luke. With reference to Matthew's record it was shown that the chief priests, scribes and elders mocking him said: "He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, Iam the Son of God." Mat. 27:42, 43. So these statementsmade by these men were shown to be mockery-they mocked him. But verse 44 says: The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth." So what the others did, the thieves did also. Hence, they mocked him as they cast the same words in his teeth that others had used. Emphasis was placed upon the fact that Matthew says "the thieves"-not just one of them, but both of them mocked him. Attention was next directed to Mark's record which says: "And they that were crucified with him reviled him." Mark

15:32. It was not a reviling by one only, but "they reviled him." So both thieves did exactly the same thing. Then Luke's record came up for study. And from Luke 23:39 this statement was drawn: "The malefactors railed on him." The speaker went on to show what one of them said-"Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." And he declared that God through Luke said this was railing on the Son of God. He knew nothing about the kingdom, it was said, except by the inscription on the cross-"The King of the Jews." It was claimed that the thief used that as a starting point for some fun-making, and his words were paraphrased after this fashion: "Why, you the king of the Jews? Huh, some king! We admit that we are thieves, but you claim you have done nothing amiss. But there you are! Dying on the cross like we are! Well, we will soon be dead and will go to a thief's resort. So we will just elect you to be our king. Now, having elected you as our king, remember me (who led in your election) when you ascend your throne as our king." Thus it was contended that the statement of the thief was nothing but mockery. The whole thing was said to be reproach, because God through Luke said it was.

Now, with respect to the foregoing reasoning, I wish to say that I have never heard any one say that both thieves did not revile the Son of God. According to the records of Matthew and Mark both were guilty. But I have always contended that one of them changed his attitude and asked to be remembered by the Lord when he came into his kingdom. However, if God through Luke said the state-ment relative to the kingdom was mockery, then I just have been wrong about it all the while. But I want you to know this: Neither God nor Luke said anything of the kind. Luke does not say, "The malefactors railed on him." Yet this is the way [the brother] quoted it and actually had it written on the blackboard that way. And he quotes it the same way in his paper. But it misrepresents Luke, for he said no such thing. Here is what Luke said: "And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us." Luke 23:39. Does that sound like the statement already mentioned? Not "the malefactors railed on him,"


but "one of the malefactors" did so. It is true that bothhad done so, but at the time which Luke records, he says one of them railed on him. Well, how about the other? Notice it. "But the other . . ." Now, get that. "But." One railed on him, but the other did something else. It doesn't say, "And the other did the same." That is what this late model theory says, but Luke did not say it. According to Luke, it is "but" instead of "and." That draws a contrast between the two. What one said was railing, but what the other said was not railing-he said and did something else. What was it? "But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." Luke 23:40-42. In drawing this contrast between the two men, God through Luke said this statement of the thief relative to being remembered was not railing. It is not true that they both did the same thing. They did at the beginning, but both did not continue to do the same thing. One of them discontinued his reproach and asked to be remembered by the Lord. If this thief con-tinued to reproach the Christ, why did he rebuke the other for con-tinuing his? To sustain that idea, it should read that he commended the other. But why make either God or Luke say the very reverse of what they said? Such is wresting the Scriptures. So just re-member that Luke said "one railed on him," but the other followed a different course, and what he said and did was not railing. If this is not so, then some one must take the "but" and the "rebuke" out of Luke's record.

One of them said, "Save thyself and us." The other said, "Lord, remember me." [The brother] said the first was an unselfish prayer- he prayed for some one besides himself. But the second, he said, was a selfish prayer; he prayed for himself alone. And the advocate of this theory says: "I had much prefer to take my chance with the thief in eternity that everyone says was lost, than with the one that all say was saved. This was the noblest prayer of the two." But the first was not a prayer at all. Luke says: "One of the malefactors

. . . railed on him, saying, if thou be Christ, save thyself and us." This statement according to Luke, was not a prayer at all, but it was pure mockery, reproach, railing or reviling. But the words of the other are contrasted with these words of reproach, thus showing the statement, "Lord, remember me," was not reproach. The words of the first were insincere; but the request of the second was sincere.

The following is from a statement in [his paper]-(and it agrees with statements made in the sermon): "'Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.' To determine the significance of thisword all we have to do is determine whereChrist went that day. To the 'heart of the earth' alone did Christ and the thief go. Mat. 12:40. Christ simply told the thief that they would both rest in the tomb that day." So the word "paradise" is made to mean the grave. The word means a pleasure garden, but how any one can think of the grave as a "pleasure garden" is beyond me. The three times the word occurs in the Bible do not always refer to the same place, for once it is used to refer to heaven itself (Rev. 2:7); but it never refers to the grave. No one claims that Jesus and the thief went directly to heaven that day. After his resurrection Jesus told Mary that he had not yet ascended to his Father. John 20:17. Paradise is a proper description of heaven; it is also a proper description of the place where Jesus went the day of his death; but it is not a proper description of the grave. To say that Jesus went only to the grave is to accept the doctrine of materialism and to declare that Jesus was no more than a beast. His body went to the grave; but his spirit did not go to the grave. He went somewhere else besides the grave. In an effort to prove that paradise means the grave [the brother] presented the following parallel:

To the Thief: "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."- Jesus.

To Saul: "Tomorrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me."- Samuel (1 Sam. 28:19).

But Samuel came "up out of the earth." 1 Sam. 28:13.

And Jesus went to "the heart of the earth." Mat. 12:40.

It is claimed, therefore, that the only difference between the two statements is in point of time-one was to occur "today" and the other "tomorrow." And it is contended that Samuel simply told Saul that he and his sons would be buried tomorrow; and Jesus simply told the thief that he would be buried today. But some parallels are rather deadly; and this parallel proves that this late model theory is all wrong. For Bible readers know that Saul and his son were not buried "tomorrow," from the time Samuel made his statement. The record tells of the battle the next day between Israel and the Philistines in which Saul and his sons were slain. 1 Sam. 31:6. But their bodies lay on the field of battle till the morrow after that. 1 Sam. 30:8. Saul's head was cut off and sent to the land of the Philistines and they fastened his body to the wall of Bethshan. 1 Sam. 30:9. The news reached the men of Jabesh-gilead, and they traveled all night to Bethshan to get the bodies of Saul and his sons. They took them to Jabesh and burned them, and afterwards buried their bones under a tree at Jabesh. 1 Sam. 30:


11-13. So it was at least several days after Samuel made the state-ment to Saul before he was buried. Hence, the statement, "Tomorrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me," had no reference to their burial. If so, then Samuel missed it a number of days, I would rather think [the brother] is wrong than to think Samuel was wrong. But Samuel told the truth-they were with him the next day in the hadean world-in hades-for they died on the morrow. But they were not with him in the grave. And when Jesus told the thief they would both go to paradise that day, he had no reference to the grave, but to a portion of the hadean world called paradise-a pleasure garden. So these parallels upset completely the idea that paradise means the grave.

I have no disposition to deny that the thief was saved. Was he baptized? Grant that he was not baptized-so what? "Well, if the thief was saved without baptism, I'll just be saved like the thief." My answer is that you may Be a thief, but you will not be saved like that one, I will tell you for sure!

(3) The dividing line.

Friends, where are you located-before or after the cross? When did the thief get what he got-before or after the death of Christ? Before the death of Christ. Was he under the will? No, he was not under the will. When did the will go into effect-before or after? The will went into effect after Christ died.

But the thief was "saved" before Christ died, before the death of the testator, before the will went into effect. Was the thief under the will? No. Are you under the will? Yes. The thief received whatever he received before the death of Christ. The will went into effect after the death of Christ. Since the thief was not under the will, and you are under the will, what makes you think you can be "saved like the thief"? That makes short work of that.



After Pentecost there is no example of salvation, conver-sion, or remission of sins except under the terms of the will.

(1) The commission added up.

Jesus Christ said, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is bap-tized shall be saved." Matthew's record of the will says: teach, baptize, into the name. Mark's record of the will says: preach, believe, baptized, saved. Luke's record of the will says: preach repentance, remission of sins, "beginning at Jerusalem." Sum it up, and it is, (1) preaching, (2) faith,

(3) repentance, (4) baptism, (5) salvation. That is what the will says.

(2) The commission executed.

The testator of the divine will, Jesus Christ, said the will would begin to operate at Jerusalem-"beginning at Jerusalem." On the day of Pentecost the will was for the first time en-forced. Peter preached; they were pricked in their hearts -that is, they believed; they were commanded to repent and be baptized, every one (no exception), for the remission of sins. Thus the will was put in force and has been in operation ever since.

This is the legalism of the gospel, according to Paul, as seen in the last will and testament of Jesus Christ.


(3) The grace of God.

Then where is the grace? The grace is in the testator who made the will. The grace is in the blood that purchased it, and sealed it. The grace is in the gospel that "bringeth salva-tion" and has "appeared unto all men." The grace is in the provision that God has made for the salvation of the race. We are exhorted to "receive not the grace of God in vain." The grace of God must be received if you are to be saved. The terms of the new covenant must be obeyed if you expect to come into the grace of God. We often sing, "there is a fountain filled with blood, drawn from Immanuel's veins, and sinners plunged beneath that flood, lose all their guilty stains." The only way a sinner can reach the blood of Jesus Christ is through the terms of the blood-bought covenant. In the old covenant, the only way the people could reach the blood of the old testament sacrifice, was through the terms and conditions of that old covenant. The blessings of the new covenant can be received only in obedience to its terms, doing what the gospel requires. Unsaved hearer tonight, remain in rebellion no longer, ground your arms of rebellion now; renounce Satan, your adversary and accept Christ, your sovereign; enthrone Christ, dethrone Satan, and declare to all in His presence that henceforth He is yours and you are His. The invitation is yours to do as you will.



We are grateful to God for his providence and to all of you for your presence. Grateful for the providential circum-stances making it possible, expedient and convenient for us to come together in such a considerable congregation. When men appear in public to discuss political issues, they can muster large crowds; but one political speaker does not hold political meetings over a period of one or two weeks, having huge audiences attend regularly and continuously. There is something about the gospel of Christ that will hold people and repeatedly bring them together. These audiences are the evidence of that very thing. I do not consider it a tribute to me. I am not thanking you for your presence, as though you had come as a favor to me, merely to hear me speak. It is your interest in the issues that are being presented to you, vital, weighty, ponderous issues of unusual importance, that brings you here.

In several services the origin, organization and evils of Roman Catholicism were discussed. The creeds of protes-tantism-the errors of the orthodox protestant denominations are now under consideration. Between the abominations of Roman Catholicism on one hand and the discords of orthodox protestantism on the other, the faith of the world has been paralyzed. We want to lead people out of the dismal darkness of Catholicism, and to guide them also out of the bewildering confusion of Protestantism, into the light of plain New Testament teaching.

Reference to the errors of the Roman Catholic Church on the "sacrament of baptism" has been made. The fifteen ceremonies connected with Catholic baptism are not mentioned in the Bible. The Catholics are wrong on every point of bap-tism; there is no point of baptism concerning which they are


right, not one. Their teaching is so mixed up in fifteen un-scriptural ceremonies that any truth they teach on baptism is invalidated. I shall contrast tonight the Bible teaching on the subject of baptism with both Catholic and Protestant teaching.

Catholics teach "baptismal regeneration" in reality-that the sprinkling of water on an infant, through fifteen cere-monies of baptism, regenerates and saves from "original sin," without which infant damnation would result. We have never taught, we do not now teach, "baptismal regeneration." We teach that baptism, coupled with faith and repentance, to a gospel subject, is a condition of salvation or remission of sins. The Roman Catholic doctrine is that baptism delivers from original sin, or inherent depravity-hereditary total depravity. That is a "theological" term. Hereditary means inherited;; total means whole, depravity means to be bad. The doctrine of hereditary total depravity means that man is wholly bad by nature, the guilt of inherent sin upon every soul born into the world. The Catholic Church teaches that it takes the "sacrament of baptism" to deliver an infant, from that in-herent original sin. That doctrine of baptism is false. It was that doctrine of Rome that caused Martin Luther to go to the other extreme in teaching that salvation comes by faith alone without any act of obedience, which he denominated "works." The Catholic idea of baptismal regeneration from original sin, and the Lutheran idea that we are justified by faith alone without acts of obedience, represent two extremes in false doctrine, between which I propose to show what the New Testament teaches on the subject of justification by faith, as related to baptism.

There is no such thing as inherent depravity. There is no such thing as total depravity. There is no such thing as original sin. The Bible teaches none of that-they are fig-ments of theological imagination. But that idea formed the basis of the Roman Catholic dogma of baptismal regeneration to deliver from original sin. Swinging away from what the Bible does teach on baptism as a condition of salvation, an


act of obedience predicated on faith and repentance, Martin Luther went to the extreme of declaring that the apostle James made a mistake, and that James 2:24 ought not to be in the Bible. Running from the abominations of one false system, Luther ran head-long into another false doctrine. Between the extremes, honest people need to know what the Bible teaches.

Reading from Matt. 28, beginning with verse 18, Jesus said to his apostles: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, bap-tizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."

There the Son of God, before he went away, delivered the commission according to Matthew to the apostles. Backed with all the authority of heaven and earth they were com-manded to teach and baptize into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. God has condescended to put upon the act of baptism the name of the Father; the Son and the Holy Spirit. Any man who will ridicule it, any man who would minimize it, any man who speaks slightly of it, had as well take the name of God in vain, deny that Jesus is Christ, and blaspheme the Holy Spirit.



A clear and concise statement of the issue is this: The Bible teaches that baptism to a believing penitent is essen-tial to salvation from past sins. Some explanations of the words of this statement, sometimes called the definition of terms, will clear the ground for the argument.

(1) Baptism. By that we mean immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ, into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the statement of


Matt. 28:18-20. In the name of Christ means by his author-ity. "All authority is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit denotes the state, or relationship, the baptized person enters. This condescension of God to put the name of the Godhead on the act of baptism imparts to the institution the importance and the solemnity of the name it bears.

(2) The Believer. The believer is one who has been per-suaded that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and who has accepted him in implicit trust as his Saviour. "But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name"-Jno. 20:31. A mere assent to a truth, or a fact, is not all that believing implies. It involves accepting with "all the heart"-Acts 8:37-what that all-comprehensive ac-knowledgment embodies. The noun pistis (faith) means confidence, trust. The verb pisteuo means to adhere to, to rely on. It further means conviction, as in Acts 2:36-37, "Let all the house of Israel know assuredly (believe beyond doubt), and "when they heard this they were pricked in their hearts" (convicted or convinced). "So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God"-Rom. 10:17.

(3) Penitent Believer. The verb "repent" comes from metanoeo and means "another mind," a change of mind, or determination. To qualify for baptism one must not only be a believer, but a believer who has repented-one who has resolved to quit sin, determined to abandon sin. Many people think that repentance occurs in a nightmare or a dream or a mysterious feeling of an indescribable nature. And they think conversion is a convulsion. But repentance is a mental act, a resolution. How long does it take a man to repent? Just long enough to reach a determination, to really resolve that he will quit sin. It is a change of will or attitude, it is another mind. So the proposition as stated does not call for mere baptism, but the baptism of a believer; nor yet the baptism of a person upon a mere belief, but of a

penitent believer-one whose sense of guilt has caused him to so regret sin that he has resolved to abandon it.

(4) Essential. When we speak of baptism as being es-sential to salvation, we simply mean that it is a necessary condition of forgiveness of sin on the part of a gospel sub-ject. It is equally related with faith and repentance in the law of Christ as a command to be obeyed in order to obtain the pardon of past sins. It therefore becomes a matter of law. The question of clemency may arise. But this issue must be discussed and decided on the ground of law, not on the basis of clemency or contingencies. Clemency belongs to the judge anyway, and the same contingencies urged to deny the essentiality of baptism would apply with equal force and effect against justification by faith in Christ. If one must be baptized, we are told, then all of our fathers and mothers, uncles and aunts, cousins and kin, together with all otherwise good people who have not been baptized are damned-and people are reluctant to accept a doctrine which they are told damns their unbaptized loved ones. Well, you are arguing against a law on the statute books of Christ, but before you reject it let me remind you that by the same contingencies the doctrine of justification by faith will also be set out and voided. If such contingencies void baptism, to the same extent they cancel faith as a con-dition of salvation.

Let us clarify the issue, and pave the way for some con-clusions: The preacher who is always arguing as a contingency of the doctrine, that if baptism is necessary to salvation, it damns people of all countries and climes who have not been baptized, preaches that faith is a condition to salvation. Cer-tainly, he does. All right, a Jew is in the audience and hears him preach that faith in Christ is necessary to salvation. The Jew comes to him and says, "Mr. Preacher, I cannot accept a doctrine that damns my good, old, Jewish father and mother who did not believe in Christ." By that contingency he rules out justification of faith. But the same preacher preaches


that the knowledge of God is necessary to salvation, that one must know God to be saved. A Chinaman is in the audience. The Chinaman comes up and says, "Mr. Preacher I cannot accept a doctrine that damns my good, old, Chinese father and mother who did not know God." So, the preachers will have to quit preaching the knowledge of God, and justification by faith, as conditions of salvation, on the same contingency that they urge against baptism as a condition of salvation. Every-body has had fathers and mothers since Adam and Eve. This is transferring a question of law to a case of clemency. But clemency belongs to the judge. We all know that as a common principle of law. A case is argued on the basis of law. The law is this or the law is that, and one is condemned or acquitted according to what the law says. But the court has power of clemency. That is over and above and outside the law. If the great Judge of all men in the last day extends clemency it is within his power alone, and outside revealed law. It is not within my province to preach, to promise, or to offer clemency. If such there is, it is the divine prerogative, and not the preacher's privilege. It is my duty to preach the word-what the law of God says on tie subject, and leave clemency to the Judge.

(5) Salvation. This has to do with remission of sins re-moving guilt, pardon, forgiveness. Pardon is an executive act. It takes place in heaven-in the mind of God, not in the heart of man. A man cannot know he is pardoned by the way he feels. Do you say, "I know I am pardoned be-cause I feel like it"? I thought that notion was out, "de-bunked," but I have run into that idea again recently- among people of a certain amount of education, who seem to think that feelings constitute the evidence of pardon. It has not been long since a preacher with whom I was hold-ing a discussion, quite an educated man, pulled his coat back and, patting his left side slightly below his chin, said: "I know I am pardoned; I know I have the Holy Ghost; I know I am saved-because I feel it." And he patted him-self (right here) and patted and kept on patting. But the longer he patted, the lower he patted-midway-he located his religion before he quit patting!

Inner consciousness does not testify to anything outside the man. The governor pardons a man in the penitentiary. Suppose a man "in the pen" should come to the warden and say, "I am pardoned, I want out of this joint." The warden says, "how do you know you are pardoned?" Suppose he should say, "I just feel like I am pardoned"! He would hardly get out on that evidence. Nor would feelings be accepted as evidence on anything else under the sun. You go into the grocery store to buy some sugar, and you ask the merchant for ten pounds of sugar. He scoops some sugar into the sack, ties it up, and hands it to you. You say, "How do you know that is ten pounds of sugar"? Suppose the mer-chant should say, "Oh, I just feel like it is ten pounds of sugar"! You would not take his feelings as evidence, unless it looked like a good sized sack, in your favor! You go into the dry goods store to purchase some cloth to make a dress; and you ask the merchant for-well, how many yards of cloth? I have seen the time (and some women) when it would be ten yards-but in view of modern style you would probably say, "give me a half yard of this cloth"! Anyway, the mer-chant clips the cloth, he rolls it up and hands it out. You say, "how do you know that it is so many yards of cloth?" The merchant says, "Oh, I just feel like it is"! You would not take his feelings for evidence. But when it comes to the question of whether one is saved or not, that is what we hear-"Oh, I am saved, I know I am saved, because I feel like I am saved."

Friends, pardon is an executive act, it takes place in the mind of God in heaven, not in the heart of man on earth. The man in the penitentiary knows he is pardoned only as the Governor declares it. You know you have ten pounds of sugar when you put it on the scales and weigh it. You know you have a yard of cloth when you lay it out and


measure it. As the man in prison knows he is pardoned only as the Governor declares it, so the sinner knows that he is saved and pardoned only as God declares it in his word. When God names baptism, along with faith and re-pentance, as a condition of salvation, there is not a man on earth who has the right to declare otherwise. This fact stands out: God has a law of forgiveness-the sinner is not pardoned until he complies with that law. Baptism is a part of that law-and is therefore essential to the pardon of the sins of an alien.

(6) From past sins. The expression "past sins" means alien sins; the sins of an unsaved man, one who is not a child of God. One who is an alien is one who has never become a child of God, one who has not obeyed the gospel; he is out of relationship with God-he is an alien. Such a man has no covenant relation with God, and is outside the sphere of one's approach to God in prayer. Baptism does not save a sinner from future sin. The future state of the person, from the time of his baptism, depends upon other conditions, based on certain other commands, necessary for the child of God to obey, as the command of baptism is necessary for the sinner to obey.

If it be urged that Mark 16:16 says "shall be saved," and does not say anything about "past sins," then one of two things would still have to be true: it refers either to the past or to the future state of sin. If it means salvation from past sins, then baptism is a condition of pardon to the sinner. But if it means salvation from future sins, it still makes baptism a condition of future salvation, a condition of going to heaven; and baptism would therefore still stand between the sinner and salvation in heaven. So what is gained by the effort to circumvent it? Nothing at all. If the reference is to past sins, baptism is a condition of pardon to an alien. If the reference is to future sins, then baptism is a condition of entrance into heaven. So in either case it is necessary to be baptized to be saved. Since the reference must be to one or


to the other there is no escape from the conclusion that baptism is essential to salvation somewhere in the divine scheme of things, and opposition to it should therefore cease.

Without prejudice or resistance friends, let us examine the evidence, all of the evidence, with faith in the word of God and hope in the promises of the gospel.



The first positive proof that I would offer you that bap-tism is essential to the salvation of a sinner is an argument on justification by faith, based on Mark 16:16. Jesus Christ said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." If baptism does not have a place in the gospel system as a condition of salva-tion along with faith, there is no explanation for this passage. Jesus said, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

First: The Meaning of the Phrase "By Faith."

There are dozens of passages that affirm salvation by faith, scores of passages that ascribe justification of sinners to faith. We accept them all and claim them all, in advance.

(1) By Faith.

Acts 16:31: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

Rom. 5:1-2: "Being justified by faith we have peace with God."

Jno. 3:16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Jno. 3:36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlast-ing life; and he that believed not the Son shall not see life."


Rom. 3:22-26: "The righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ upon all them that believe , . . that he might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus."

Eph. 2:8: "By grace are ye saved through faith."

We believe all these passages, every one, and if there are others you wish to bring, we believe them, too. Stack them to the dome of this building and I will accept them all-but we maintain that when the Bible says we are saved by faith, it does not mean by faith without obedience in baptism.

(2) By Faith-When?

The issue is one of faith, but not of faith only-not mere faith. The issue is not whether one is saved or justified by faith. On this joint there is general agreement. It is a mat-ter of when one is justified by faith. I insist that we do not deny the doctrine of justification by faith, but rather that we accept it, believe it, preach it-and practice it. But the question is: What degree of faith justifies a man? That is the issue. The apostle James mentions barren faith and dead faith-Jas. 2:17, 20, 24. Does a dead faith justify? Can barren faith save? Anything barren cannot produce. Barren soil cannot produce, and barren faith cannot produce. James says if any man thinks a barren, dead faith can produce any-thing, or save anybody, he is a "vain man," and concluding his argument on the premises stated, he said: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." The phrase "by works" here simply means obedience; hence, a man is justified by obedience and not by faith only.

In support of his premise James cities two examples, one above and one below verse 24, in which he plainly said "not by faith only." First, was the example of Abraham, the friend of God. Second, was the example of Rahab, the har-lot, an alien. It was Rahab's faith in the cause the spies rep-resented that caused her to work their escape. It is not Ra-hab's own salvation, whether she was a saved person or not, that James here argues. It was the question of when faith becomes effective, and he points out that the faith of this harlot was not effective until it worked, and without work-ing it would have effected nothing; and he then applied the principle of salvation, concluding that nobody, Abraham or Rahab, saint or sinner, whether a Christian or an alien, can be justified by faith without works. In no realm and to no one is a barren faith effective. Faith alone does not justify; faith only cannot save.

Now in the denominational order repentance is put before faith. So let me ask some questions based on the order of these two commands, repentance and faith. When salvation by repentance is affirmed, does it mean that repentance saves a man before faith? Certainly not-they will say. All right-but they do tell us that repentance comes first, and faith comes second. And the Bible says that we are saved by repentance. They have the order wrong, but take it as they put it-repentance before faith-when the Bible says "saved by repentance," does it mean that a sinner is saved when he repents before he believes? No, they say. Very well, putting them in the right order, the gospel order-faith and repentance, for in the gospel order faith comes before re-pentance-when the Bible says that the sinner is saved by faith it does not mean that he is saved by faith before re-pentance, nor faith before baptism, any more than saved by repentance would mean by repentance before faith, in the denominational order. Any preacher who persists in argu-ing that "saved by faith" means before and without bap-tism must admit, in order to be consistent, that in his order of things "saved by repentance" means by repentance before and without faith!

What then is meant by the expression "by grace are ye saved through faith" in Eph. 2:8? Well, the same apostle states in Tit. 2:11 that "the grace of God which bringeth salvation has appeared unto all men." Are all men saved?


No. Then grace is conditional. But for the same reason that grace does not save the unbeliever, faith does not save the disobedient. What then does the phrase "salvation by faith" include?

(3) By Faith-What?

What does the phrase "by faith" include? The answer is found in Heb. 11. It is a chapter on saving faith. "By faith Abel"-offered. By faith Enoch-walked. By faith Noah- prepared (the ark). By faith Abraham-obeyed. By faith the children of Israel-crossed the sea. In the case of Abel justification by faith included the offering of his sacrifice. In the example of Enoch it included his life of walking with God. In the statement about Noah, he obtained the right-eousness which is by faith when he prepared the ark, as God commanded. In the case of Abraham it specifically states that he obeyed, which settles every point or question as to Abraham's justification by faith. And it was by faith that the Israelites "crossed the Red Sea." That was quite a pud-dle, friends-one that they could not merely step over or jump across. Walls of water stood up on each side of the passage through it. By faith they went through that passage at the command of Moses-by faith they crossed the sea. Honestly friends, if "by faith" could span the Red Sea, do you not think it should span a baptistry?

The whole question is: When does faith save a man? What degree of faith justifies a sinner? Well, the expression "by faith" simply denotes faith as the agent of justification. It means by faith plus whatever is commanded to whomso-ever it is commanded. Yes, it means faith plus obedience. "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works (obedience) is dead . . . Ye see then how that by works a man (any man) is justified, and not by faith only."-Jas. 2:20, 24.

(4) By Faith-Plus.

In Acts 11:21 we are told that many believed and turned to the Lord. What was the turning act? It was not believing, because they believed and turned. If they were saved at faith, the moment they believed, they were saved before they turned. What did these believers do when they turned?

Again: In Acts 3:19 Peter commanded the Jews in Jeru-salem to "repent and be converted." Repentance was not the act of conversion in this passage for they were commanded to repent and be converted. So the turning act is something besides faith, and the act of conversion is in addition to re-pentance. What did these penitents do, in addition to repent-ing, when they were converted?

Another one: In Jno. 1:11-12 we are told that believers receive the power "to become children of God." If one is saved at faith, then he is saved before he becomes a child of God, since one must believe in order to receive power to be-come a child. The order is: 1. believe; 2. power to become a child of God. If they were saved at the moment of faith, they were saved before they became children of God. In what act does a believer exercise the power to become a child of God?

One more: In Heb. 11:6, Paul says, "he that cometh to God must believe that he is." Here the order is: 1. believe.

2. come to God. One cannot come to God before he believes; so he must come to God after he believes. If one is saved when he believes, at the time of faith, then he is saved be-fore he comes to God. What does one who has believed do when he comes to God?

The answer to these questions, my friends, will determine the whole question and prove beyond all doubt that faith saves a sinner in the act of baptism. The turning act in Acts

11:21 is baptism. The converting act in Acts 3:19 is bap-tism. The act of becoming a child of God alluded to in Jno. 1:11-12 is baptism. The act of coming to God in Heb. 11:6 is baptism.


Let us turn the chart here.

Take a look at it: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Believe plus baptized, equals saved. That is what the Bible says. This is what men say: Faith minus baptized, equals saved. Denominational preachers insist that salvation comes by faith before and without baptism. Jesus said that faith plus baptism equals salvation. It is plus or minus-faith plus or faith minus. Jesus said "plus"-men say "minus." What do you say?

Well, the word "and" means "plus." For instance, two and two, that means two plus two does it not? Two plus two equals four. All right, believe "and" means believe "plus"- so "believe" plus "baptize," equals something. What does it equal? Jesus said it equals saved. If believe plus baptized equals saved, then believe minus baptized could not equal the same thing. Plus and minus do not equal the same thing. Two minus two does not equal four. Two minus two equals nothing-and faith minus baptism equals nothing.

Try the same procedure on Act 2:38. "Repent and be baptized . . . for the remission of sins." Repent plus bap-tized, equals remission. But denominational doctrine is that repent minus baptized, equals remission. But plus and minus

do not mean the same thing, therefore, repent minus baptized equals nothing.

Second: A Textual Analysis.

Now, let us analyze the separate statements of Mark 16:16, and let them stand out in their divine simplicity, as a clear command of Jesus Christ.

(1) "He that believeth and is baptized."

Here we have a positive institution deriving all the au-thority that it has solely from the command of Christ. What-ever efficacy exists in the act of baptism, it is due to the sovereign act of God. Salvation is the free and sovereign act of God upon conditions of his own choice and prescrip-tion. If baptism is to be respected at all, it is because Christ ordained it. If salvation is to be had at all it is because God grants it. If there are definite and formal acts, or condi-tions, upon which salvation is to be obtained, it is because Jesus Christ the head of the church prescribed and estab-lished such definite and formal acts. In view of the author-ity of Jesus Christ as the head of the church, read Mark 16:16, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." In the light of all that, who will say "he that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved"? Here is a question. He that believeth and is baptized shall be-something. Saved? Not if he is already saved. You cannot save a saved man. You could not say, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," to a saved man. So, he that believeth and is bap-tized shall be something-what? Saved? Not if he is already saved in the same sense in which trie passage says he shall be saved.

Transpose the sentence-"he shall be saved"-he who? "That believeth and is baptized." It simply points out the man.

In arranging a sentence for diagram the principal sen-tence is selected-then the dependent or relative clause. In


Mark 16:16 here is the principal sentence-he shall be saved. Here is the dependent clause-"that believeth and is baptized." Transposing the sentence, it reads: He shall be saved that be-lieveth and is baptized. It points out the man-it tells who shall be saved. "Shall be saved" is the direct object of the two verbs believeth and is baptized. Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." But Jesus did not say "is saved" nor "shall be baptized." The change in the order of language necessary to get salvation before baptism involves a change in the tenses of the verbs the Lord used, and that is too much change for any man to make who has an ounce of respect for the word of God or for the Lord Jesus Christ.

Belief and baptism are joined together by the copulative conjunction "and." To both thus united is annexed the promise "shall be saved." Belief and baptism-that copulative conjunction "and" is a coupling pin. You all know what a coupling pin is. The coupling pin joins two box cars to-gether on the railroad track. As long as they are thus joined, one cannot be switched to the north and the other to the south-they are joined together, they must go in the same direction, because they are coupled. All right, "faith" is one box car; "be baptized" is the other; the conjunction "and" is the coupling pin. They must go in the same direction. No man has the right to uncouple them and put the station (salvation) between them. What Jesus Christ joined to-gether, let no preacher put asunder!

So in Mark 16:16 the whole matter of damnation de-pends on faith, but the lack of it; and the whole matter of salvation also depends on faith, but the exercise of it.

But one preacher said, it is like this: He that getteth on the train and is seated, shall ride to Chicago. He said, "you see, it is necessary to get on the train, but it is not necessary to be seated; one can ride to Chicago whether he is seated or not." Now that is the way it is with Mark 16, he said-"he that believeth and is baptized," is like "he that getteth on


the train and is seated"-getting on the train is essential, but being seated is incidental; so believing is essential, and being baptized is incidental-one can ride on to Chicago whether he is seated or not, and one can be saved whether he is baptized or not. Well, here is what is wrong with that. Getting on the train is given the same place in the sentence that believe is given in Mark 16, and being seated takes the place of being baptized. Chicago, the destination, is made parallel with salvation. Can you see the sophistry of it? Well-here it is: according to their doctrine, the very instant aman believes he is saved. So, according to his illustration, the minute the man gets on the train he is already in Chicago and does not have the time to sit down! The illustration

breaks down of its own weight.

Anyone who has studied grammar long enough to learn anything about sentence structure knows the difference be-tween a true sentence and a false sentence. For the statement "he that getteth on the train and is seated shall ride to Chicago" to be true, it would be necessary to both get on the train and be seated to ride to Chicago. If one could ride to Chicago without being seated, then the sentence would be false-it would not be a true sentence. But Jesus uttered a correct sentence, and there is no escape from it-"he that believeth. and is baptized shall be saved."

(2) "He that believeth not shall be damned." But they always pull this one: "It does not say, he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned." No, it does not say that, for the reason that a man who does not believe could not be baptized. He could not if he would, he would not if he could, and it would not do him any good if he did! The idea of baptizing a man who does not believe is nonsense. An unbeliever cannot be baptized. Faith is a condition of baptism. As well say "he that eateth and di-gesteth his food shall live, but he that eateth not, and di-

gesteth not his food, shall die." Everybody knows if one does not eat he is not apt to digest his food; and anybody ought


to know if one eats a barrelful and does not digest it, he is not apt to live. It takes two things, at least, to live-eating and digestion. If you are weary of life you need not worry about indigestion-just do not eat. So if you are against the idea of being saved, you need not bother about baptism- just do not believe. The apostle John declared, "he that be-lieveth not maketh God a liar"-1 John 5:10-and one in-sult against God will damn any man if he lets it stand. Again, Jesus said, "he that believeth not is condemned al-ready"-Jno. 3:18-which means that his case is closed by his unbelief.

When Jesus said in Lk. 13:3 "except ye repent ye shall perish." Because he did not say "except ye repent and do not believe ye shall perish," would any of these preachers say that one may be saved if he repents but does not believe? He can-not perish because he has repented, but he cannot be saved because he has not believed, according to their doctrine of repentance before faith. If Mark 16 means that only the unbe-liever is damned, then Lk. 13 could as well mean that only the impenitent shall perish. Since repentance is put before faith in the denominational order, then the man who has re-pented but has not believed cannot perish, according to the turn by which they attempt to circumvent Mark 16. If it should be claimed that no malediction is uttered against the unbaptized as against the unbelievers, then I suggest the read-ing of Lk. 7:29-30: "But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." Thus Mark 16:16 stands against all such sophistry and no amount of opposition, twisting and turning can change it.

(3) Some errors compared.

The influence of Romanism in Protestantism colors all the creeds, and the contrast between them all and Bible teaching is always obvious.


1. The Romanist says: "He that is baptized shall be saved without faith."

2. The Protestant says: "He that believeth shall be saved without baptism."

3. Jesus Christ said: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

Which do you choose? If the sentence should be para-phrased to read, "He that believeth and is baptized shall re-ceive $5,000, but he that believeth not shall receive nothing," not a person would fail to understand it, or apply it, including all these ranting radio preachers.

If Noah had said, "he that believeth and entereth the ark shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be destroyed" could an antediluvian believer have been saved without enter-ing the ark-by only believing?

When God appoints two things for the accomplishment of one end, it takes both to accomplish that end. Will anyone therefore dare say, "he that believeth but will not be baptized shall be saved"? Where is the man who will dare say it?

(4) Things essential and non-essential.

In Heb. 5:8 it is declared that Christ is "author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." With that state-ment of scripture in mind, try these questions.

1. God commands men to believe-is he author of salva-tion to them that believe not?

2. God commands men to be baptized-is he author of salvation to them that obey not?

Try it again:

1. Faith is essential to obedience. 2. Obedience is essential

to salvation. 3. Therefore, faith is essential to salvation. Apply the same to repentance:


1. Repentance is essential to obedience. 2. Obedience is essential to salvation. 3. Therefore, repentance is essential to salvation.

Do you accept the logical conclusions from the premises on faith and repentance? Then apply the same to the sub-ject of baptism.

1. Baptism is essential to obedience. 2. Obedience is es-sential to salvation. 3. Therefore baptism is essential to salva-tion.

The Universalist says: God is author of salvation to those who do not believe.

The Denominationalist says: God is author of salvation to those who are not baptized.

The word of God says: God is author of salvation to them that obey.

Question: Is God author of salvation to one who does not obey the gospel?

The faith that saves is the faith that obeys. The inevi-table conclusion is that one who does not have faith enough to be baptized simply does not have faith enough to be saved. Man must exercise faith, but faith must also exer-cise him.

Thus Mark 16:16 stands, freed from the sophistry of prejudiced men, as the Magna Carta of salvation.

Third: The Question of Authenticity.

When preachers who oppose the essentiality of baptism as a condition of salvation face the analysis of Mark 16:16, they feel the force of it, and there is but one way out of it -that is, to deny the inspiration of the passage and say, in short, that it is not scripture at all, and should not be in the Bible. That is the way Martin Luther attempted to get rid of James 2:24 on the subject of faith and works, and now that effort is being made to get rid of Mark 16:16. Baptist preachers in particular are insisting that Mark 16:16 is an interpolation, is not inspired, and does not belong to Mark's gospel. So to get rid of baptism, they turn infidel and deny the inspiration of the passage. Let us look into the matter.

It is urged that two of the oldest manuscripts, the Vati-can and the Sinaitic, do not contain it; and that the passage, therefore, is of doubtful origin. Even so, the translators know-ing that fact, retained it in the text because of the fact that all of the ancient versions, and 2000 copies of manuscripts, do contain it. The fact that it is missing from the two manuscripts does not prove that it was deliberately omitted, but rather indicates a lost, or missing, fragment of these manuscripts.

Since so much ado has been made over this question by prejudiced preachers, grabbing at straws, to oppose Mark 16:16, I submit a list of facts for your consideration:

1. The authenticity of the passage has never been ques-tioned by the scholars. The only point that has ever been raised has been in reference to its genuineness, whether it was written by Mark, or by one of the other apostles; and, therefore, whether it belonged to the end of Mark's epistle, or to another gospel record. The statement would certainly not be less valuable if another apostle wrote it.

2. It is claimed that it is not authentic because it is not found in two of the old manuscripts-the Vatican and the Sinaitic. But it is in practically all of the others-some five hundred in number-including the Alexandrian, which is next to the Vatican and the Sinaitic in age and accuracy.

3. The passage was quoted by Irenaeus in the second century, which shows that it was in Mark's record at that time-two hundred years before the existence of the two manuscripts from which it is missing.

4. All of the ancient versions contain it, which shows that it was in the Greek copies from which the translations


were made. Among them are the Peshito Syriac, Old Italic, Sahidic, Coptic-all of which were in existence earlier than the two manuscripts that omit it, and there are only two in which it does not appear. "But there are two thousand copies that contain it.

1. The facts mentioned in the passage are mentioned in the other gospels. See Lk. 8:2-Jno. 20:1-8-Heb. 2:5.

2. The same two manuscripts that leave out Mark 16:16 also leave out other portions of the New Testament which have never been called in question for that reason. A very significant example of it is the book of Revelation. Many other copies leave out the entire twentieth chapter. Do any of these deniers of Mark 16:16 deny Revelation 20 for the (same reason? I have never heard of such coming from any of these premillennial Baptists. They would, of course, say that those sections were merely lost, or torn off, or by some other accident simply "missing" from these two manuscripts. Very well, if that could be true of those missing passages, why could it not be true of Mark 16:16 also?

The proof of this statement is given by Dr. Philip Schaff, president of the American Revision Committee, in his book, "Companion To The Greek New Testament," page 116. Likewise Alexander Roberts, fellow-member of the same committee with Dr. Schaff testifies to the same fact in his book, "Companion To The English New Testament," page 63. Their testimony is the voice of scholarship, and is the last word on the subject.

7. The forty-seven translators of Authorized Version, our common Bible, put Mark 16:16 in the text. The one hundred and one translators of the American Standard Re-vised Version put Mark 16:16 in the text. Doctor Schaff was the president of this committee, and of that passage he said: "The section is found in most of the uncial and in all the cursive manuscripts, in most of the ancient versions, in all the existing Greek and Syriac lectionaries as far as examined; and Irenaeus, who is a much older witness than any of our existing manuscripts, quotes verse 19 as a part of the gospel of Mark. A strong intrinsic argument for the genuineness is also derived from the extreme improbabil-ity (we may say impossibility) that the evangelist should have intentionally closed his gospel with 'for they were afraid,' verse 8." (Companion To The Greek New Testa-ment, page 190, by Philip Schaff). And Philip Schaff, presi-dent of the translating committee, added that he regarded the passage as "authentic or historically true."

If more evidence is needed, Alexander Roberts, the em-inent member of the translating committee says with em-phasis that the author of Mark 16:16 was surely "one who belonged to the circle of the apostles" and that it "is insert-ed, without the least misgiving, as an appendix to that gos-pel in the Revised Version." (Companion To The English New Testament, page 63).

When the translators and revisors themselves speak with such finality on the authenticity of Mark 16:16, it looks bad for some half-baked Baptist preacher to make an attack on its inspiration, for what everybody knows to be his sole reason-to get rid of a passage of scripture fatal to Baptist doctrine!

While trying to deny the inspiration of Mark 16:16 on the claims of scholarship, it can be seen that the point of scholarship turns against them. And when they lose their point, the only alternative is to accept the inspiration of Mark 16:16 and then lose their argument against baptism! A hard bed, but they made it and must lie in it.

8. As a final point-the apostle of the Hebrew letter, quoted from Mark 16 in Heb. 2:5. Do you think the apostle would have quoted from a spurious account? The argument is all on one side-for the authenticity of Mark 16. It is, in-deed, strange that preachers, in their bitter opposition to


Mark 16:16, will turn infidel and deny its inspiration in an effort to get rid of it.

So the whole thing comes to one question: Is Mark 16:16 true or is it false? If they say it is true, it settles the baptism question. If they say it is not true, they are no better than any other modernist or infidel who denies any other section of the word of God.



I now offer as the second proof-text that the baptism of a believing penitent person is necessary to the forgiveness of sins, salvation, that passage which has been the theolog-ical battle-ground of centuries-Acts 2:38. We could stake the whole issue on this single passage. Its value to the con-troversy over the design of baptism is recognized by all scholars regardless of their party affiliations, and the greatest scholars of the world have refused to sacrifice scholarship for party creed and have conceded that the Greek article "eis" in Acts

2:38 means "in order to," and that makes baptism a con-dition of remission of sins.

I do not hesitate to solicit the special attention of this audience to Acts 2:38 as the most conspicuous text of the New Testament on the subject of baptism, and shall devote my very best effort to free it from the withering influence of sophistry.

(1) The passage: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

The inseparable connection between baptism and remis-sion of sins in this passage should be observed at a glance by unbiased minds.

Take the word "for"-necessary to-which makes the remission of sins depend on baptism in the same sense that it is made to depend on repentance. For clearness and em-phasis, transpose the sentence, and read: Every one of you repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. You will note friends, that two things here, "repent" and "be bap-tized," are related to a third, "the remission of sins." Now the article "eis" which is translated "for" cannot express two relations. Whatever relation repentance bears to remission of sins, baptism bears that same relation. Is repentance essential to salvation? Then, so is baptism.

(2) The question: "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

What shall we do for what-if not to be forgiven? Since they were asking what to do to be forgiven, do you think the answer of Peter told them to do something because of it? The very object of the question was to ascertain what to do to obtain forgiveness, and certainly they were not told in the answer to do something because of forgiveness. Well, when were they forgiven? Not when Peter began preaching -they were unbelieving, impenitent crucifiers of Jesus Christ. Not when they were convicted, or "pricked in their hearts," for then they asked what to do to be forgiven? Not when they cried "what shall we do?" for they had not yet been given the answer. When were they forgiven? Here is the answer: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you." That alone as an answer to a question, with no design expressed, would make the answer essential. It was an answer to a question. Was the answer essential to the point of inquiry? To say it was not would be to make the text useless and its language meaningless. In the answer Peter told them some-thing to do to obtain the thing asked for, not something to do because they had already obtained it.

(3) The answer analyzed, "Repent and be baptized for" ■-something.

This dual command has a purpose, a design, an incentive- what is that motive?


1. The co-ordinate conjunction "and" couples two verbs. It is a copulative conjunction-a coupling pin.

2. The phrase "for the remission of sins" is the object or design-the end sought.

Reading these verbs separately it would be: Repent for, or be baptized for-the thing in view. If remission of sins was not the thing in view, there is no good sense in the passage. For comparison, eliminate baptism and read the sentence: "Repent every one of you ...for the remission of sins." Friends, what does "for" mean when it is read that way? Every one will say "repent for" would mean re-pent in order to remission. Very well, read as it is: "Repent and be baptized for"-now what does "for" mean? Does the mention of baptism change the meaning of "for"? With some preachers it does!

(4) The Greek preposition "eis'-in order to.

This article in the Greek language has been the battle ground of the discussion on the design of baptism.

1. Let us study it as a Greek preposition. The authorities, all of them, bear witness to the fact that "eis" never looks backward but always forward; that is, it is never rendered "because of" or on "account of" in all the New Testament, and it never had that meaning in any New Testament pas-sage-not one. There are seventeen Greek words from which the English preposition "for" may be translated. Of this number there are two that are of particular importance to this argument: (1) The term "dia," which is the Greek preposition that means "because of; on account of." (2) The term "eis," which is the Greek preposition which means in order to. Of the word "eis" Thayer's Greek Lexicon of the New Testament says: "A preposition governing the accusative and denoting entrance into, or direction and lim-it; into, to, towards for, among, etc"-but never because of, account of-never retrospective, always prospective. That is the word "eis" and it is the word that Peter used in Acts 2:38: "Repent and be baptized eis"-"for"-eis what? for what? for the remission of sins.

2. Let us compare some passages where the same prepo-sition is employed.

Turn to the chart for the illustration of this list of Bible passages.

Now, friends, consider this: If believe "eis" puts one into Christ before baptism, then repent "eis" would put one into Christ before faith in the denominational order, for, remem-ber, they teach that repentance comes before faith. That is plain Baptist doctrine-repentance before faith. But they say "eis" in Acts 2:38 means "on account of." If that is true, then "eis" in the passages listed on this chart means the same, which would mean that the sinner repents because he is already saved, and in Christ before he believes!

(5) Some passages where it is claimed "eis" does not mean in order to.

First: Matt. 3:11-"I indeed baptize you with water (eis) repentance." Here, it is contended, that John meant that he baptized people because of repentance and not in order to repentance. But the word simply means "into" here-baptized into repentance-into the life obligated by


repentance, or into the amendment of life. This is shown by the exhortation "bring forth fruits meet for repentance." The word repentance here is used broadly in the sense of conversion. In Acts 11:18 we are told that God granted to the Gentiles "repentances unto life." But in Acts 15:3 the same writer used the word conversion in referring to the same thing, stating that God had granted "the conversion of the Gentiles." Hence, repentance is used in these pas-sages in the sense of conversion. Repentance in Acts 11:18 includes all that conversion does in Acts 15:3-and it is into this repentance that John's subjects were baptized. They were baptized into the benefits or blessings repentance brings, as in Rom. 6:3-4, where it refers to being baptized into death -into the benefits of his death. So "eis" in Matt. 3:11 points forward, not backward. If John had meant "on account of" in that passage the word "dia" would have been used instead of the word "eis."

Second: Matt. 12:41-"Because they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah." It is contended that the men of Nineveh repented "because of" of the preaching of Jonah. But that is not the statement of the text nor its meaning. They repented eis or into the preaching of Jonah. The Nin-evites repented into the preaching of Jonah by their refor-mation-they "repented in sackcloth and ashes." The Old Testament text tells us that God saw their works-on the same principle of John's command to "bring forth fruits meet for repentance." John's subjects were baptized into that kind of re-pentance and the Ninevites repented into Jonah's preaching in the same manner. So again, "eis" looks forward, not backward.

Third: Mark 1:44-"Go show thyself to the priest and offer for thy cleansing." It is argued that "for" here means "because of"-offer because of the cleansing. But the word "for" here is not "eis"-it is "peri." Even if it were "eis" it would not mean "because of" in this place. The healing took place before the cleansing. The text does not say "offer for


thy healing"-it says offer for thy cleansing. The law of cleansing is stated in Lev. 13:2-7. The leper was first healed- then the healed leper went to the priest for the cleansing, and in obedience to the law he must "offer for the cleansing"- make his offering in order to the cleansing, which followed the healing.

True, Luke said the leprosy departed from him im-mediately, and that he was cleansed. But that certainly could not be taken to mean that he was cleansed before he had com-plied with the law of cleansing, which Jesus commanded him to fulfil-Luke simply recorded the fact of his cleans-ing, rather than the time of it. So the argument on "eis" is lost.

It is worth mentioning that the phrase "for a testimony unto them" in the same verse is the word "eis," and means in order to a testimony. There is not one example, not one single example, of the word "eis" meaning because of or on account of-it always points forward, never backward, and from this rule and meaning there is no exception. The chal-lenge to produce one has never been met.

No denominational preacher was ever known to argue that "eis" in Matt. 26:26 means "because of"-Jesus did not shed his blood because of remission of sins, but in order to remission. No such preacher ever did say that "eis" in Rom.

10:10 means "because of." They do not think that one be-lieves because he has already obtained righteousness, but in order to righteousness. They never did, not one of them, contend that "eis" in Acts 11:18 means to repent because of the life mentioned, for they know it means in order to that life. They must and will concede that "eis" in all of these passages on the chart, one, two, three, four, five-and we could offer many others-all, yes, all mean "in order to." But when they come to Acts 2:38, in that passage alone we are told that it means "on account of," "because of" remission of sins. Now why? Simply because baptism is in Acts 2:38 is connected with the term "eis," whereas baptism is not


in the other verses where "eis" is connected with faith and with repentance. But if "eis" means in order to in the other passages, it means in order to in Acts 2:38-and that is pre-cisely what it means: Repent and be baptized in order to the remission of sins. Any other construction on the term "eis" in this passage is a departure from the plain facts and attaches an unauthorized meaning to the preposition, for which there is not one single, solitary example.

(6) A parallel of Acts 2:38 and Acts 3:19.

A comparison of the first and second sermons by the apostle Peter in Jerusalem adds evidence to the meaning of the preposition "eis."

First: Repent and be baptized for (eis) remission of sins-gift of Holy Spirit.

Second: Repent and be converted that (eis) sins may be blotted out-seasons of refreshing.

The same apostle made both of these declarations in the city of Jerusalem in the promulgation of the gospel plan of salvation to the Jews. It was in the first sermon of Peter in Acts 2:38 that he declared repentance and baptism to be for the remission of sins; and in the second sermon he de-clared in Acts 3:18 that repentance and conversion are for the blotting out of sins. In the two passages repentance occupies the same place. But in Acts 3:19 "be converted" occupies the place that "be baptized" is given in Acts 2:38. They are therefore identical in act and purpose-baptism and conversion-and what the one is "for" in one passage, the other is "for" in the other passage.

But remember, friends, Acts 2:38 does not say, and does not imply, that mere baptism or mere repentance, either alone, is for the remission of sins. The passage says re-pentance and baptism are for the remission of sins. Bap-tism by itself is not for anything. Repentance by itself is not for anything. But repentance and baptism together are for (in order to) the remission of sins-both, together, in Acts 2:38 are for the remission of sins. Here we have that coupling pin again, the copulative "and"-that co-ordinate con-junction, joining the verb "repent" and the verb "be baptized" with "for the remission of sins," a phrase modifying both.

Again, take a look at Acts 2:38 from the angle of a sen-tence with a simple instead of a compound predicate. As it stands "repent and be baptized" form a compound predicate, a sentence with two verbs, joined by a copulative conjunc-tion. Now, cut baptism out-vote the verse dry; not a drop of water in it; never heard of baptism-and the passage reads: "Repent everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." Repent for the remission of sins- now, what does "for" mean? There is the sentence with one verb in it, a simple instead of a compound predicate. "Repent for the remission of sins." What does "for" mean? Well, even a Baptist knows that a sinner does not repent because of remission of sins, but in order to remission. Very well, then, since the meaning of "for" is settled, when con-nected with the verb "repent" alone, let us put baptism back where it was: Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins-now what does "for" mean? There is not a denom-inational preacher in Houston, Texas, nor in the State of Texas, nor in this United States of America, that ever would have conceived the idea that "for" in Acts 2:38 means "on account of" if baptism had not been in the passage. And that list of passages on this chart, where eis is used in con-nection with the design of faith and of repentance, proves it.

Again, before passing let me remind you that on the day of Pentecost those people asked a question, men and breth-ren, what shall we do? That question demanded an answer. It was a question to be answered, and it was answered. What was the answer? Now, suppose we forget the expres-sion "for remission of sins," for a moment. The people ask-ed Peter a question. The question was, what shall we do? Peter's answer was-"repent and be baptized, every one of


you." Was that not the answer to the question? Even if he had not added any phrase to modify the two verbs- it was a command in answer to the question. They asked what to do, and if Peter gave them a command that did not have anything to do with the answer to their question, it was a rather peculiar thing. But in taking the command as an answer to a question common sense and Bible teaching meet on the subject and settle the issue.

(7) The verbs, number and person: "Repent ye baptized every one of you."

A new effort has been made to circumvent Acts 2:38. That effort is in reference to the second person plural and the third person singular in the command to "repent ye (sec-ond person plural) and be baptized, every one of you" (third person singular). Repent, with the subject "you" under-stood, is second person plural; while "be baptized every one of you" is third person singular. So, "for the remission of sins," they tell us, modifies "repent" but does not modify "be baptized." So they would make it read, "you repent for the remission and be baptized every one of you." It is argued that the phrase "for remission of sins" cannot modify both "repent" and "be baptized," one being second person plural, the other third person singular. This is the effort to prove that the verbs repent and be baptized are not re-lated in number and person and therefore do not carry the same design in the command. It is an attempt, to dis-connect the purpose of baptism from the purpose of repent-ance.

Since their play is on the Greek preposition eis, the Greek rule of grammar covering the use of Greek prepositions and Greek verbs should settle that point. The Greek gram-mar states plainly that the imperative sentence in the Greek takes only the second person, and there is no third person singular. Thayer's Greek lexicon says it. The Hadley & Allen Greek Grammar says it. Goodwin's Greek Gram-mar says it, as do also all other authorities covering the


rule of grammar of the Greek imperative sentence. Now, the command to "repent ye" definitely puts Acts 2:38 in the Imperative, therefore there is no third person singular in the Greek sentence, and they lose their argument on their own ground. Since Acts 2:38 was spoken in Greek by Peter, and written in Greek by Luke, neither of them could have made the distinction Baptist preachers have attempted to make on the number and persons of the verbs of this passage. That you may see and hear for yourselves the authorities on this point, I quote from them the rules to which I refer .

The Hadley & Allen Greek Grammar, page 204, under paragraph 606, on the agreement of verbs with two or more subjects, gives the rule as follows: "With two or more sub-jects connected by and the verb is in the plural. If the sub-jects are of different persons, the verb is in the first person rather than the second or third, and in the second person rather than the third."

The Greek Grammar by Goodwin and Anthon states this same rule, and it is supported also by Thayer, Liddell & Scott, and others among the lexical authorities.

(8) Some simple illustrations of the English sentence.

These authorities set aside the argument and expose the Baptist effort on this point as a mere subterfuge, a weak dodge to cloud the issue and confuse the people. The fact remains that our text is in our own language, however, and by some comparisons it will be easy to see that Peter instruct-ed the same people to obey both commands, and for the same purpose.

1. The mother commands her children: "Come ye, and be washed every one of you for the cleansing of your hands, and ye shall receive the gift of a good meal."

2. The physician advises a group of patients: "Go ye, and be bathed every one of you for the healing of your in-firmities, and ye shall receive the blessings of good health."


1. A college president says: "Matriculate ye, and be in-structed every one of you for the reception of a diploma, and ye shall enjoy the benefits of a good education."

2. And Peter said on Pentecost: "Repent ye, and be bap-tized every one of you for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

It can be observed at a glance, comparing these sentences, that the same persons commanded to repent were command-ed to be baptized, and for the same identical purpose. The objection founded on the grammar of the passage is pure sophistry. In any language, Acts 2:38 stands impregnable, and is impervious to attack. It is the key-note command of the gospel dispensation, in answer to the question of what to do to be saved. We pass to the next proof-text.



As a further positive proof, of the essentiality of bap-tism, I offer Rom. 6:3-4. Let us look this chart over and analyze Romans 6. It reads: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead


by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

Take a look at the several statements made of baptism in the sixth chapter of Romans.

(1) "We were buried with him by baptism."

The subjects of the baptism on this passage, include Paul himself. The passage is therefore linked with Paul's con-version and has definite bearing on the question of how Saul of Tarsus (Paul) was baptized in Damascus as well as the design of his baptism as stated in Acts 22:16.

(2) "Buried with him by baptism" indicates clearly that baptism is the agent of salvation. It says "by baptism"-the result named in this verse is obtained "by" baptism, and since the purpose is to get "into Christ"-verse 3-it is "by" baptism that this purpose is accomplished. It is equivalent to saying that Paul and the Romans were saved by baptism, and by a baptism that was a burial with Christ, for their salvation was the thing to which Paul was making reference.

(3) "Baptized into Christ."

Now, there are no degrees in a state. One is either in or out. One is either married or unmarried, a citizen or an alien. One is either in Christ or out of Christ. Here it is declared that baptism is God's appointed way of bringing men

into Christ.

(4) "Baptized into his death."

Baptism stands between the sinner and the merits and benefits of the death of Christ. To be baptized into the death of Christ is to be baptized into the blood of Christ.

(5) "Walk in newness of life."

Here the design of baptism is again declared to be "newness of life." It follows baptism, and is entered by baptism-by being "raised" from baptism's burial. A very


similar statement is made by Paul to the Colossians: "Buried with him in baptism, wherein ye also are risen with him"- Col. 2:12. Thus baptism stands between the sinner and the new life.

(6) "The form of doctrine."

As a conclusion to his premise on the burial with Christ in baptism in verses 3 and 4 of Romans 6, in verses 17 and 18 Paul declares that the process was an obedience "from the heart" to "that form of doctrine," and "being then made free from sin," the result was righteousness. The order is: death, burial, resurrection, freedom; and it is the death, burial and resurrection that takes place in baptism, which frees one from sin. Before baptism the subject is dead in sin; after baptism he is dead to sin. "He that is dead to sin is freed from it"-verse 7. So the sinner is baptized out of death in sininto deathto sin-"beingthenmade free from sin." Paul said "then"-when do you say? So obedience to the form of doctrine in baptism stands between the sinner and freedom from sin.

(7) The element of the burial.

After all is said, we are often told that the baptism of Rom. 6:3-4 is Holy Spirit baptism anyway, not the baptism of water. That the purpose of this dodge is to break the force of the argument on the design and action of water baptism, the following facts will prove:

First, the New Testament plainly says there is one bap-tism, so the elimination of one will establish the other. Eliminate water baptism, establish Holy Spirit baptism; establish water baptism, eliminate Holy Spirit baptism-there is only one, says Paul in Eph. 4:4, and by no kind of argument can it be made to mean two.

Second, the element in which the person is buried in Rom. 6 is the element out of which he is raised-"buried with him by baptism . . . raised to walk in newness of life." Col.

2:12 says, "buried in baptism ...wherein ye also are raised up." The element in which the person is buried is the element out of which he is raised. If the Holy Spirit is the element in Rom. 6 then, having been baptized in the element of the Holy Spirit, they were raised up out of it, and were no longer in it. That destroys the Holy Spirit baptism argument on Romans 6:3-4. But it fits water baptism for the element into which they were buried being water, is the element out of which they were raised-out of the water.

Third, men cannot administer Holy Spirit baptism-but the baptism of the Great Commission was a baptism that the apostles were commanded to administer. The apostles were commanded to teach and baptize the nations-Matt. 28:19-20. As long as there are nations (or creatures-Mk. 16:15) to be taught this commission will remain a command. The conclusion is that the one baptism of this dispensation is the baptism the preachers of the New Testament were com-manded to preach and administer, and cannot, therefore, be Holy Spirit baptism.

If the baptism of the Holy Spirit is in force today, all should desire it and seek to secure its benefits, and its powers. But if the baptism in the Holy Spirit were in force today its manifestations would also be in force. This conclusion is inevitable and irresistible, for as goes the proposition so must be the demonstration. Holy Spirit baptism calls for Holy Spirit powers and manifestations. Can we have the thing without the results attending it? If so, how could one know that he had the thing? If there is no manifestation attending it, no demonstration to prove it, by what means could one know that he possessed it? The effects would be no more or less than an indwelling of the Holy Spirit through the word of God, which is the possession of all who obey it, which is not Holy Spirit baptism at all. There is but one baptism, the baptism of the Great Commission, of Acts 2:38, of Rom. 6:3-4, and Holy Spirit baptism does not belong to the present dispensation.




Another positive proof-text of the essentiality of baptism is Acts 22:16. Take a look at the chart: "Arise and be bap-tized and wash away thy sins."

There are two records of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus- the one recorded by Luke in his own description in Acts 9, and the narrative in Paul's own words in Acts 22. The events recorded in Acts 9 must therefore be considered, in the light of Paul's language in Acts 22. In Acts 9 the command to "arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins" is not included in the account, while in Acts 22 the expression "it shall be told thee what thou must do" is not used by Paul. The word "ap-pointed" is used in place of the word "must." But taking these accounts together both the must and the be baptized in order to wash away sins are there.

This is the case of Saul. After the Jerusalem purge, Saul was on his way to rid Damascus of Christians. He was ar-rested on his journey. A great light shown round about him. The Lord said, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Saul said, Who art thou Lord? The Lord said, I am Jesus of Nazareth whom thou persecutest and Saul said, Lord what wilt thou have me to do? Jesus said, Arise and go into the city and there it shall be told thee what thou must do. Saul went into the city of Damascus; for three days he fasted and prayed in blindness; Ananias came to him and said, Why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins.

(1) The statement of the text.

The passage says, 1. arise; 2. be baptized; 3. wash away thy sins. No matter what the washing is, name it what


you want it to be, baptism stands between the sinner and the washing. That passage does not say that baptism is the washing-it says that baptism stood between Saul and the washing away of his sins. If the blood washes sins away- then baptism stands between the sinner and the blood.

I had preached a sermon on the conversion of Saul of Tarsus in a Tennessee city. A certain preacher took to the air the next morning and derided the idea that it was necessary for Saul to go into Damascus and be baptized to be saved. "I can tell you when he was saved," he roared-"he was saved theminutehefell from his horsebeforehe hit theground!" Well, that was "a new one on me." I wondered if I had been reading the record of Saul's conversion forty years and had overlooked a thing as big as a horse! But upon referring to record again, I found that it mentions no horse. He evidently got the horse where he got his idea, out of the Bible, not in it. But we will give him the horse for good measure and show what he has done to the text. Saul was saved "in transit," between the time that he fell from the horse and the time that he hit the ground. All right-after he hit the ground, he said, "Who art thou Lord?" He did not even know who Jesus was-yet that preacher said he was saved before he hit the ground! Is a sinner saved before he knows who Jesus is? You know, I doubt if the Holy Rollers would take that kind of testimonial. But says one, he must have known, because he called him, Lord. That does not prove it. Sarah called Abraham lord. That is interesting to me. Sarah was Abra-ham's wife and she called her husband, lord-I wish we lived back there in that dispensation! Saul knew that a superior person was addressing him.

But when Jesus told him who he was, Saul said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? If he was saved he did not know it. What about the "feelings" idea? What about that experience of grace? But Jesus said, "Arise and go into the city and there (not here), there it shall be told thee." If he was saved, Jesus did not know it. If Saul was saved on the


Damascus road: 1. He was saved before he knew who Jesus was. 2. He did not know it, because he asked what to do.

3. Jesus did not know it, because he said in the city he would be told what to do. 3. Ananias did not know it, for he came to him in the city to tell him what to do. 5. And if Saul was saved before Ananias came to him, shut in his room, blind, fasting, praying-he was the most miserable saved man ever read about! Now, that is the fix into which the preachers get Saul, trying to circumvent Acts 22:16: They deny the authenticity of Mark 16. They change the grammar of Acts

2:38. They spiritualize the element of Romans 6:4, and they get Saul saved before he himself, Jesus, Ananias or anybody else knew it! But with all of their sophistry they cannot escape the conclusion that baptism stands between the sinner and pardon, remission, or the washing away of sins.

(2) The language of the text: "Arise and be baptized and wash away sins."

The words of the text imply a separation from sin- "wash away sins." The command of the text declares how this separation is effected-by baptism and washing. The phraseology of the text indicates that the washing follows baptism.

It is frequently insisted by people who harbor a prejudice against baptism that they do not believe that baptism washes away sins. Well, the text of Acts 22:16 does not say it does. These people further declare that they believe the blood of Jesus washes away sins. So I believe; and so I teach. But this text does very definitely place baptism between the sinner and the washing.

Remission of sins in Acts 2:38 is not baptism-or re-versing it, baptism is not the remission of sins-but re-mission follows baptism, and baptism stands between the sinner and remission. So the washing is not baptism, nor baptism the washing, in Acts 22:16, but the washing follows baptism, and baptism stands squarely between Saul, the sinner, and the washing away of his sins.

(3) The "must" of the text: "What thou must do."

The washing in Acts 22:16 is the same thing as remission in Acts 2:38.

Jesus said that what Ananias told Saul to do was a "must" command. Paul said "must believe" in Heb. 11:6; Jesus said "must (except) repent" in Lk. 13:3, like "must (except) be born again" in Jno. 3:3-5; and Ananias told Saul that the "must" command of Jesus was to "arise and be baptized." Denominational preachers declare that faith is essential,- but baptism is the great nonessential!

(4) When was Saul saved?

Count the "ifs" and locate the point at which he was saved.

If when he fell to the earth, then he was saved before he knew who Jesus was. If when he asked what to do- then he was saved before he knew that he was saved. If when Jesus told him to go into the city-men he was saved before Jesus knew it. If while tarrying in Damascus-then he was saved before Ananias knew that he was saved. If while he was fasting and praying in blindness in his room-then he was a most miserable saved man, without an experience of grace! If when Ananias laid hands on him-then he was saved before he was told what the Lord told Ananias to tell him to do. If he was saved before he was baptized-then he was saved before his sins were washed away.

And that is the kind of a saved man we are asked to believe that Saul of Tarsus was-and all for the one purpose of getting baptism out of the plan of salvation!

(5) The three commands of the text: arise . . . be baptized .. .wash away sins.

These three commands are joined together by the con-junction "and"-that same copulative of Mark 16 and Acts 2.


It is the coupling pin of all these passages, linking baptism with faith and repentance in equal relation to salvation, remission and washing. Did a denominational preacher ever tell an unsaved man to do what Ananias told Saul? If not, why not?

(6) The question of efficacy.

It is urged that water cannot literally wash away sins. Neither does the blood of Christ literally wash away sins. No matter what the washing is, baptism stands between the subject and the washing, and he cannot get it without going through baptism.

(7) Some objections considered.

First, it is claimed that when Ananias called Saul, "Brother Saul," that Ananias recognized, him as a saved man. But Peter called the sinners on Pentecost "brethren" before they had either believed on Christ or repented of their murder. (Acts 2:29; Acts 3:17, 19) It only means that they were "Israelite" brethren, and Saul was a brother "Jew."

Second, it is argued that Saul received the Holy Spirit before his baptism, as an evidence that he was saved before he was baptized. But the text does not say that he received the Spirit before baptism, nor does it tell when he did receive it. It merely states that he might be filled, but the time when is not stated. In relating the occurrence in Acts 22:15, Paul mentions that he only received his sight at the hands of Ananias-nothing more. The time when the Holy Spirit was imparted to Saul is not on record. But grant the miracle, it still does not change the command to be baptized.

Third, it is finally insisted that when the "scales fell from his eyes" it was the proof that he was then saved. But the scales were said to fall from his eyes, not his heart. That means only that his physical sight was restored, which had nothing to do with the remission of his sins. There is but one relevant question: When was Saul saved? If he was saved before the command to "arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins" was obeyed, then the words of the Bible mean nothing and prove nothing. No amount of argu-ment or labor can change the language of Jesus Christ, his apostles and other disciples, in these plain and important passages.

(8) "Calling on the name of the Lord."

There is a rule of grammar that covers the participle form of this part of the command Ananias gave to Saul. It reads: "The active participle following an injunction points out the manner in which it is to be obeyed. Well, the command of Ananias to Saul was an injunction; and calling is an active participle, therefore "be baptized" was the manner in which the injunction to call on the name of the Lord was to be obeyed. Thus baptism stands between the sinner and calling on the name of the Lord. If Saul was saved before baptism, he was saved before he called on the name of the Lord.

(9) "Born out of due time"-I Cor. 15-8.

A later effort to get baptism out of the conversion of Saul has been made in the far-fetched argument that Paul said Jesus appeared to him last of all, "as a child untimely born" or born "out of due time." First, it is pertinent to ask, when is the due time for one to be born again? If he had been "born" any sooner, it would have been without faith. If that expression refers to the new birth, then the appear-ance of Jesus to him was not the right time for him to be born, and they have Paul being born when he should not have been! When is due time for one to be born? Surely not beforehebelieves.

Paul is not referring to the new birth or "born again," of Jno. 3:3, in his reference to "born out of due time"- the words are not even the same. The Greek word in Jno.

3:5 for "born again" is gennao; and in I Cor. 15:8 it is ek-troma, according to Englishman's Greek Concordance; show-ing that they are not used in the same sense and of the same thing at all. The reference to "born out of due time" in I Cor.

15:8 says, "as" a child untimely born. It did not say Paul was born out of due time, or born untimely. In fact, that passage does not say that Paul was born at all. It says Jesus appeared to him, was seen of him, as of one untimely born.


It is a comparison only. The next verse shows plainly that he referred to the manner in which he established personal ac-quaintance with Jesus, as an eyewitness, a condition and qualification necessary to later becoming an apostle. "For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle because I persecuted the church of God."

After all of the labored argument, the text still says that Ananias told Saul to "Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins." Was Saul born again before his sins were washed away? Does anybody think so? Do the preachers think so? Then, the answer to the question of the time when Saul's sins were washed away settles the whole point.



We now turn the chart and advance the argument to the "how" as well as the "what" of baptism, in the case of Philip and the eunuch.

(1) Baptism requires water-Acts 10:48: "Who can forbid water that these should not be baptized?"

(2) Baptism requires much water-Jno. 3:23: "John was baptizing in Aenon near to Salem because there was much water there." The idea has been advanced that a place of

much water was selected because the people needed the watering place for their donkeys! But the text says John was baptizing because there was much water there. The reason stated was "baptizing," not watering donkeys.

(3) Baptism requires coming to the water-Acts 8:36: "They came unto a certain water."

(4) Baptism requires going down into the water-Acts

8:38: "They went both down into the water." If any preach-er insists that "into" means that they merely went to or unto the water, then what does the word "unto" mean in the verse above? They came "unto" the water, and went "into" the water. If "into" means "unto" then the passage would read, "they came unto the water and went unto the water." What the text does say is that they came unto it, and went into it. But the text also says that they came "up out of" the water. If when they went down into the water it means they stayed out of it, then when they came up out of the water, it means they stayed in it! Tampering with the word of God gets preachers into a lot of trouble they could avoid by accepting the Bible instead of opposing it.

(5) Baptism requires coming up out of the water- Acts 8:39: "And when they were come up out of the water."

But we are told that Philip could have sprinkled him even in the water. Perhaps so; but did you ever see a preacher take a man into the water merely to sprinkle a few drops on his head? It is possible that some preacher has done that for they have done so many other ridiculous things-but it would certainly cap the climax of something silly-it would be immersing a fellow on one end and sprinkling him on the other! Anybody who has a thinker, and is using it, knows that is not what Philip did to the eunuch. Of the baptism of Jesus the record says that he "went up straightway out of the water." He could not have come "up" if he had not been down, and he could not have come "out" if he had not been in. Thesameis true of theeunuch.


(6) Baptism further requires a burial in the water-Rom.

6:4: "Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death."

(7) Baptism also requires a resurrection from the water -Col. 2:12: "Buried with him in baptism, wherein ye also are risen with him." The element into which one is buried is the element out of which he is raised, which again shows Rom. 6:4 and Col. 2:12 to be not Holy Spirit baptism, but the one baptism in water.

(8) Baptism is further referred to as a planting-Rom.

6:5: "For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resur-rection."

Thus baptism is the recapitulation of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ; the re-enactment of Calvary; and by it we die with Christ, are buried with Christ, are raised with Christ, to live in "newness of life" with Christ."



The next positive proof-text in support of the teaching that baptism is an essential condition of salvation from past sins, that I want to offer and analyze, is Peter's reference to Noah's salvation in the ark by water, "the like figure where-unto to even baptism doth also now save us."

(1) The type and the antitype.

It is immediately objected that baptism in this verse is a "figure." No, it was Noah's salvation by water which became the figure of our salvation by baptism-the like figure (or after a true likeness) whereunto baptism now saves us. A type of a thing does not make the thing itself a figure- does it? When in I Cor. 10:1-5 Paul stated that the Israelites "drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ"-did that make Christ figurative? No; and because Noah's salvation by water was a figure of our salvation by baptism, it does not make baptism a figure or figurative in I Pet. 3:21. Omitting the parenthesis in I Pet. 3:21, it reads: "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The salvation is not figurative, it is just as actual as the resurrection of Christ, and baptism, the text says "even baptism," actually saves us "by the resurrection of Christ." The passage con-nects baptism with the resurrection of Christ in salvation. Baptism saves us "by" something-what? "By the resurrection

of Jesus Christ"-then the resurrection of Christ saves us by baptism, as the means procuring the benefits of his death and resurrection.

(2) The comparison-water and baptism.

God used water to save Noah from the old world of de-struction. God uses water, in baptism, to save us from the world of sin now.

1. Water drew the line of separation between the old world and the new.

2. Water delivered them from the old world into the new world.

3. Water cleansed and purified the earth.

4. Water brought them into the new sacrificial covenant with God.

These are precisely the functions of baptism, and form the type of baptism, which is the evident meaning of Peter's language. Baptism separates us from sin; baptism delivers us from the old world; baptism cleanses us from sin; baptism brings us into the new covenant of Jesus Christ.

(3) Noah and the water. It has been insisted by some of the carping preachers that

Noah stayed out of the water! Well, if that is the point of comparison, then the world was lost by getting into the water,


so do not be baptized at all, you will be lost if you get into the water! Well, that would sink the whole Baptist denomina-tion, for one cannot be a Baptist without baptism, and that turn certainly does not help a Baptist preacher out of his difficulty-it just puts him in deeper. According to this Baptist dodge, that Noah did not get into the water, Mark

16:16 should read: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be damned"-for getting into the water! Such as that only shows that these dodging preachers are arch-perverters of the word of God. This text is not discussing what baptism is- it tells us what baptism does.

(4) Baptism now saves us.

The text says that baptism does now save us-"baptism doth also now save us." I submit, friends, that any explanation which makes Peter say that baptism does not save us is not an explanation, but a contradiction.

1. One cannot be baptized and stay out of the water- and it is baptism that is here said to save us.

2. Previous to baptism the salvation mentioned in this text does not exist, since it is baptism that "now saves us."

3. Subsequent to baptism the salvation promised does exist-for baptism "doth now also save us."

4. Without baptism, therefore, the salvation mentioned by Peter cannot exist, since the passage makes it depend upon baptism.

So stripped of the sophistry of men, who "do always re-sist the Holy Spirit" and "never cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord," I Pet. 3:21 stands in proof of the place of baptism in the gospel plan, and as a perpetual rebuke to men who continuously prate and prattle that baptism is non-essential.

(5) The salvation of Noah.

Before leaving this argument a few more words on the elements entering into the salvation of Noah, showing further


the principles of obedience to God, will be in order. Paul, in Heb. 11:6, tells us that "by faith Noah, being warned of God . . . and moved with godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house . . . and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith." Just how much does such a salvation include and embrace? Let us note:

1. Noah was saved by grace-"He found favor in the sight of the Lord"-Gen. 6:8.

2. Noah was saved by faith-"By faith Noah"-Heb.


1. Noah was saved by obedience-"By faith Noah . . . prepared an ark"-Heb. 11:7.

2. Noah was saved by water-"Wherein eight souls were saved by water."-1 Pet. 3:20.

3. Noah was saved in the ark-"Wherein eight souls were saved."-1 Pet. 3:20.

Now all of these principles enter into our own salvation from sin. They are shadows of salvation-types of salvation. We are saved "by grace through faith; "Christ is author of salvation to "all them that obey him;" we have been sanctified and cleansed by the "washing of water" by the word of God; and we are baptized "into Christ" our ark of refuge and haven of hope.



In this series of texts I have chosen to set forth the essentiality of baptism is Paul's Ephesian declaration that there is one baptism. Please turn the chart to that illustration.

Already we have shown that the one baptism must be either Holy Spirit or water, but cannot be both-one only. We have also shown that this one baptism is identical with the baptism of the Great Commission, preached and ad-


ministered by the apostles of Christ, and commanded to all nations to the end of the world. This baptism being ad-ministered by the apostles, in the name of Christ, is of necessity baptism in water.

(1) Christ did nothing in his own name-Jno. 10:25.

"Jesus answered them, I told you and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me"-Jno. 10:25. The baptism of the Great Commission, executed in Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 2:38, was ad-ministered "in the name of Jesus Christ." Holy Spirit baptism was not administered in the name of Christ, because Jesus did nothing in his own name, but the Father's, the one baptism is therefore not Holy Spirit baptism.

(2) The Samaritans were baptized by Philip in the name of Christ-Acts 8:12-16.

"But when they believed Philip preaching the things con-cerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women"-verse 12. But when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that the people of Samaria had received the word of God, they dis-patched Peter and John to Samaria to confer the special gifts upon them, "Who, when they were come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit: for as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord." This example furnishes clear and definite proof that baptism in the name of Christ was the baptism which Philip administered-the baptism of water, not the baptism in the Spirit.

(3) The agent of the baptism cannot also be the element I Cor. 12:13.

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." But baptism could not be "by" and "with" at the same time- or, both the agent and the element. Since the Spirit is the agent of this baptism, it is not the element. The element is therefore water, and the sense of the passage is: In obedience to the one Spirit-by the authority of the one Spirit-we are baptized into the one body.

(4) The four prepositions of the one baptism.

The use of the prepositions "by,"-"in"-"for"-and "in-to"-shows clearly that the one baptism is the baptism com-manded, not received; administered by men, not bestowed by Christ. Notice these prepositions: "By the one Spirit"- "In the name of Jesus Christ"-"For the remission of sins"- and, "Into the one body." That, friends, is the one baptism. Butthatis notall.

(5) The four relations of the one baptism.

This baptism is in the name of Jesus Christ; by the Spirit of God; for the remission of sins; and into the one body ■-thus bearing the four-fold relationship. There is a relation between this one baptism and all that belongs to the scheme of redemption in Christ. It is related to God the Father, by name. It is related to Christ the Lord, by authority. It is related to the faith, by confession. It is related to the body, by entrance. It is related to the Holy Spirit, by direction. It is related to the human spirit, by obedience. It is related to hope, by promise.


(6) There are seven "ones" connected with the one bap-tism.

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one bap-tism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all"-Eph. 4:4-6. The one God means one worship. The one Lord is one authority. The one faith is one gospel. The one baptism is one action. The one body is one church. The one spirit is one mind, or disposition in members of the body. The one hope is the one desire for heaven and the common expectation of entering into it when this life is over.

Now is this baptism essential or non-essential? Call these seven "ones," friends, one by one, and name the non-essentials in the list. Which of the seven ones are you willing to check as the non-essential? There is not a preacher in Houston who will check one of them and say, that is it-that is the non-essential.



In line of argument to prove the connection of baptism with the gospel plan of salvation I now offer a few passages which clearly show that wherever Christ was preached by the apostles and evangelists of the New Testament, baptism was preached.

(1) The apostle preached remission of sins in the name of Christ, beginning at Jerusalem.

"It is written . . . that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, beginning at Jerusalem" Lk. 24:47. Now that was the command of Christ to his apostles in Luke's record of the Great Commission. The apostles either preached the same thing concerning bap-tism and remission of sins that was preached on Pentecost in Acts 2:38, or else they disobeyed Christ. How then did remission of sins begin at Jerusalem? Turn to Jerusalem and see-Acts 2:38: "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." Remission of sins in the name of Jesus Christ was baptism for the remission of sins. Being defined in the be-ginning at Jerusalem, on Pentecost, by inspiration as re-corded in Acts 2:38, this same design must be understood in all other places where baptism in the name of Christ is mentioned, even though the design may not be specifically stated-for baptism in the name of Christ is baptism for the remission of sins, "beginning at Jerusalem," and cannot be anything else, anywhere else.

As an illustration, take the Lord's Supper. When we are informed in one place what the design of the institution is, everywhere else it is mentioned, it carries that same design whether expressed or not. If the design is not expressed, it must be understood, when the design of the institution is established. So when the apostles baptized people-we all know why. If the design of repentance can be under-stood, wherever mentioned, whether expressed or not, be-cause the design of it is mentioned elsewhere, and therefore established-why not the design of baptism?

The plain fact is this: Whenever salvation is ascribed to any one thing, at any one time or place, it cannot depend upon less than the thing of which it is affirmed, though it may depend upon more-something not mentioned there, but mentioned elsewhere. Apply this rule to faith, repent-ance and baptism, and it will correct the idea in the minds of so many that baptism is not essential because there are some passages affirming salvation of faith where baptism is unmentioned. The same is true of repentance. Is repent-ance therefore not essential? There are passages stating that we are saved "by faith" which make no mention of repentance, and that affirm salvation by repentance that make no mention of faith. We can prove alternately by such procedure that neither faith nor repentance is necessary!


And passages that affirm salvation of baptism, where nei-ther faith nor repentance is mentioned, by the same token would prove that only baptism is necessary, without either faith or repentance! If the rule applies one way on salvation "by faith" it will have to work both ways, and contradictions prevail. But take the passages all in the proper connection, and the plan of salvation is seen as a whole with all of its related parts-faith in Christ, repentance of sin, confession of his name, and baptism into his body.

(2) The saved believer and baptism.

Let us take a brief look into a few passages that refer to believers and see what kind of believers they were. The very term believer came to mean a baptized person.

Take Acts 2:43: "All that believed were together." Who were these saved believers in Jerusalem? They are the ones mentioned in the verse above. "Then they that gladly re-ceived the work were baptized" . . . and "all that believed were together." There it is seen that "all that believed" were all who had been baptized, and added. Verse 41 says the baptized were added. Verse 47 says that all the saved were added. God added only the saved-God added only the baptized. God added all who were saved. God added all who were baptized. All the baptized; all the saved; only the baptized; only the saved-were added. Anybody can see (unless you are looking the other way) that only the baptized persons were the saved persons, and therefore that the saved believer was the baptized believer. Therefore, when the believer is mentioned as a saved person, it must be under-stood that he was a baptized person.

(3) By grace through faith. Take Eph. 2:8: "By grace are ye saved through faith." Here the denominational preacher rings the changes. Saved by faith, he shouts, no baptism in that verse! And no re-

pentance either, we may add as a rejoinder! Now, think a moment-to whom is the language of Eph. 2:8 addressed?

It was addressed to the members of the Ephesian church. Well, in chapter 5:26 the apostle told them that they had all been "sanctified and cleansed by the washing of water by the word"-every person addressed had already been baptized. So the statement "by grace are ye saved through your faith" referred to the baptized believers of the Ephesian church. Yes-the saved believer is a baptized believer, a rule which will apply to all such references as used through the New Testament, after the Great Commission went into opera-tion-in other words, from the Day of Pentecost to the end of time.



The great commission is the constitution, or shall we say, the decrees of the church or kingdom? In the strict sense kingdoms, or absolute monarchies, do not have constitutions, and the kingdom of Christ is absolute. Its decrees are the New Testament books. The Great Commission is the sum-mary of them all.

(1) The Divine Constitution.

The Great Commission is the embodiment of the prin-ciples of the kingdom of Christ on earth.

No liberty can be claimed by any man or set of men that contravenes a single principle of this divine constitu-tion of laws.

The preaching of the apostles of Christ was the de-velopment of the principles contained therein.

The practice of the apostolic churches was the applica-tion of these principles.

These unalterable facts bind us, friends, to the New Test-ament as the one and only rule of faith, preaching and practice. The summary of the four records of this Commis-sion bearing on the subject of the place of baptism in the gospel plan is a fitting and final argument.


(2) The four-fold gospel.

Matthew announces the order of things in the words teach, baptize, into the name. (Matt. 28:19-20)

Mark fills in the spaces with, preach, faith, baptism, salvation. (Mk. 16:15-16)

Luke supplies the words repentance and the remission of sins. (Lk. 24:47-48)

John makes the general statement that by the preach-ing of the terms of the gospel the apostles would remit sins or retain sins-remitting sins to all who comply with the terms of the commission of Christ, but retained by all who refuse the gospel which they were charged to preach. (Jno. 20: 21-23)

The key to the application of this commission is found in Luke's expression, "beginning at Jerusalem." The day of Pentecost was the beginning. The apostles waited for their qualification, the promise of the Holy Spirit to "clothe them with power." The occasion arrived, the promise came, the apostles preached, thousands believed, and in conviction asked what to do. The spokesman said: Repent (here it is in the commission-as on the chart); and be baptized" (here it is also stated in the commission); for the remission of sins (which Luke said would begin at Jerusalem and so it does). The first gospel sermon of Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost, is therefore identified with the Great Commission. By a comparison of the three records of the gospels-Matthew, Mark and Luke-with Acts 2:36-38, the place of faith re-pentance and baptism can readily be seen in their proper order and relation in the gospel plan.

(3) The order of faith and repentance.

As unpsychological, unscriptural and inconsistent as it is, there are those yet who will insist that repentance comes be-fore faith in the gospel order. Let us settle that question at this point, once and for all.

1. If you were called on to teach or preach to an infidel, which would you put first-repentance or faith?

2. The Ninevites "repented at the preaching of Jonah" -Matt. 12:41-did they repent at Jonah's preaching before they believed what he preached?

3. Godly sorrow produces repentance, said Paul in 2 Cor. 7:10-what produces godly sorrow, if repentance comes be-fore faith?

4. The goodness of God leads to repentance, says Paul in Rom. 2:4-does God's goodness lead a man to repent who has not believed in God?

5. Without faith it is impossible to please God, is de-clared in Heb. 11:16-if repentance comes before faith, how could it be pleasing to God?

6. There is joy in heaven over a sinner's repentance, Je-sus said in Lk. 15:7-but "no faith" displeases God, Paul says in Heb. 11:6. If repentance comes before faith, it makes Jesus say that the angels in heaven rejoice over one with whom God is not pleased!

7. One who has not believed is said by Jesus to be con-demned, Jno. 3:18-but if he repents before he believes, then


angels in heaven rejoice over his repentance while God con-demns him because he has not believed.

1. The devils believed, according to Jas. 2:19-if re-pentance precedes faith, it follows that the devils had re-pented.

2. The wicked rulers believed, Jno. 12:41-43-if repent-ance comes before faith, it follows that the wicked rulers had also repented. But they refused to confess Christ!

3. The gospel order as stated by Paul in Rom. 10:17 is hearing, then faith-"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God"-but if repentance comes before faith, and one cannot believe until he repents, there is no use to preach to a man until after he repents-so why preach repentance at all?

4. Repentance is a change of mind, so when an un-believer repents he becomes a believer-then if a believer repents does he become an unbeliever?

5. Jesus said, Except ye repent ye shall perish, Lk. 13:3 '-if repentance comes before faith, in this case the man cannot perish because he has repented, but he cannot be saved because he has not believed-unless salvation comes without faith.

There are many more such passages to illustrate the impossibility of repentance before faith in the gospel plan. When Jesus said to the Jews, "Repent ye, and believe me gospel"-Mk. 1:15-he was addressing Jews who believed in God; and was calling upon them to repent toward God, as Jews, and thus be ready to accept the gospel which was about to be preached. When Paul said that he testified to the Jews and the Greeks, "repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ," it is obvious that the Jews and Greeks believed in God before they repented to-ward God. Having believed in God, they were obligated to repent of their Jewish and Gentile sins, and to then accept


the gospel of Jesus Christ. These passages do not teach repentance before faith in God. And there is no passage that does teach that gospel repentance comes before gospel faith. Thus on the day of Pentecost-Acts 2:36-38-Peter told the hearers of the gospel who were "pricked in their hearts" (believed) to "repent and be baptized." That is the inspired statement of the gospel order: fifth, repentance, baptism.



This passage is considered by some as an unanswerable objection to baptism. Contrary to that it proves the indis-pensable importance of the command.

(1) Of Paul-Of Christ.

The question of Paul to the Corinthians, "were ye bap-tized in the name of Paul?" proves the relationship which bap-tism establishes.

1. To be baptized in the name of Paul would make one to be "of Paul."

2. Then to be baptized in the name of Christ would make one to be "of Christ." Very definitely Paul showed that to be of Paul one must be baptized in Paul's name, and he objected to the Corinthians saying that they were "of Paul" for that very reason. Then just as definitely must one be baptized in the name of Christ to be of Christ-one cannot be "of Christ," therefore, without being baptized in the name of Christ.

3. When Paul said "lest any should say that I had bap-tized in mine own name"-he showed that such a thing would have made baptism a non-essential, human ordinance, a pitiful man's ceremony. It would have destroyed the act of baptism. Paul did not thank God that none or few had been baptized, but simply that he had not done it, since they were bent on being baptized in his name, thus rendering the act meaningless. If baptism had been unimportant, it


would not have made any difference and there was no need for concern on the point. The fact that baptism is an essential thing is the reason for Paul's concern as to the scripturalness of their act.

(2) The Ellipsis-"only" and "also."

The meaning of the passage can be seen by compari-son. There is a law governing elliptical sentences. In such sentences when the ellipsis is implied, but not expressed, it must be supplied. This is a well known rule of grammar. The following will serve as examples:

Jesus said, "He that believeth on me believeth not on me, but on Him that sent me." Did he mean that they did not believe on him? No. With the ellipsis supplied the idea simply is, "He that believeth on me, believeth not on me only but also on him that sent me."

Again, Jesus said, "Labor not for the bread that perisheth but for that which endureth unto eternal life." Did Jesus forbid laboring for the bread that we eat? No. With the ellipsis supplied the thought reads, "Labor not only for the bread that perisheth but also for that which endureth unto eternal life."

Another example is found in Paul's statement to Timothy. "Drink no longer water but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and for thine oft infirmities." Did Paul mean for Timothy to quit drinking water altogether? No. With the ellipsis supplied the thought is clear. "Drink no longer water only but use a little wine also for thy stomach's sake-that is, mix a little of that acid wine into the water to correct the alkaline effects produced by the water Timothy had been drinking.

The Corinthian passage is of similar construction. When Paul said, "Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel," did he mean that he was not commanded to baptize people, as the twelve apostles were? In the Great Commission the twelve were positively commanded to go and baptize. Does this mean that Paul was not? Of course not. Then what does it mean-just what the other passages mean with ellipsis supplied. Here it is: "Christ sent me not to baptize only (merely) but to preach the gospel also." The preacher's first duty is to preach the gospel. The baptisms are the result and will follow in consequence. But men who were not doing the preaching could attend to the baptizing, whether Paul did or not. Yet he did baptize some of the Corinthians and said so. Did he do something God had not sent or authorized him to do?

It must be apparent to all that the attempted argument is a mere dodge-and a poor one at that. It is mighty in-consistent for a Baptist to make it, for the reason that it has Paul saying that "Christ sent me not to make Baptists, but to preach the gospel"! No man can be a Baptist without bap-tism. And if baptism is no part of the gospel it certainly follows that Paul could have preached the gospel a thousand years and never have made a Baptist! Any Baptist who can see an inch in front of his nose would never bring that passage up for an argument against baptism.



With the array of scriptural citations before us in evidence of the place of baptism in the gospel plan, it is difficult to imagine the viewpoint of any man who would offer objections to it. Yet the task of circumventing every passage in the New Testament which expresses any connection that baptism sustains to salvation is the constant and studied effort of every denominational preacher. This discussion of the subject would be left unfinished and incomplete without a reference to the main points of these objections.


(1) It is claimed that because Jesus was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness," that baptism is a righteous act only, but not one essential to salvation, or remission of sins, since Jesus had no sins to be forgiven.

The inventor of such an objection had evidently given little or no consideration to the baptism of John in connection with the baptism of Jesus. Let us consider them together.

First: The baptism of John-Mark 1:4-5. "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the bap-tism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusa-lem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins."

1. John preached the baptism of repentance-the baptism growing out of repentance. When John preached baptism, he preached the baptism of repentance. But when John preached repentance he preached the baptism of repentance. There is an inseparable connection between them in design and result. One without the other renders both of no effect.

2. It was "for the remission of sins." That is, the bap-tism of repentance" had remission of sins as its object. Baptism alone and by itself is not for anything. Repentance alone and by itself is not for anything. But the baptism of re-pentance-that is, baptism and repentance together are for the remission of sins.

3. They were baptized of John "confessing their sins." Let it be observed at once that they confessed their sins, not their salvation. This shows that John's baptism had some con-nection with sins. The people John baptized had sins, and confessed that they did. They did not confess that "God for Christ's sake (or John's sake either) had pardoned their sins"-they confessed their sins, and upon such confession were baptized for the remission of sins.

4. The people baptized of John were justified, and es-caped condemnation by so doing. Read Luke 7:29-30: "And

all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Phar-isees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against them-selves, being not baptized of him."

5. Jesus approved John's preaching on baptism and in-dorsed its design. When Jesus came to be baptized, John forbade him, saying, "I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" Why did John not want to baptize Jesus? Because he was preaching the baptism of repentance for remission of sins, and Jesus had no sins for repentance or remission. If the doctrine of those who wear the name "Baptist" today is right-that baptism is for those who have no sins to remit, because of prior pardon-then Jesus should have been the precise and proper subject for baptism. But John forbade him-showing that it was because of his sinless-ness that John did not consider Jesus a subject of his baptism. But Jesus said, "Suffer it to be so now." We do not "suffer" the rule; we suffer the exception-so Jesus was an exception to John's baptism. But he said, "Suffer it to be so now"- suffer it now-that is, Jesus was the one and only exception to John's baptism. It proves that Jesus approved and indorsed the baptism John preached "for the remission of sins," by ex-plaining that he was the one and only exception to its purpose and design. It also proves that what John preached then is not what Baptists preach now-and John's baptism was not modern Baptist baptism at all.

Second: The baptism of Jesus-Matt. 3:13. "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, suffer it to be now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: and lo a voice from


heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased:"

Since Jesus did not receive John's baptism, as such, why was Jesus baptized?

1. Jesus was not baptized for an example. Someone is always saying that Jesus was baptized "for an example." If that is true why was he not baptized first instead of wait-ing until there went out to John Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about the Jordan? If Jesus had been baptized for an example, he would have come to be baptized first, so that he would have been an example to the people. But the people in great numbers were baptized first. Where, then, was the example? It is nowhere said in the scriptures that the baptism of Jesus was "for an example"- rather, it was too late to be for an example, after multitudes had already been baptized.

2. The baptism of Jesus stands alone and apart-sep-arate from all others in purpose. Read in this connection John's own words concerning the why of the baptism of Jesus. "But that he should be made manifest to Israel, there-fore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare rec-ord, saying ...he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God"-Jno. 1:31-34. The baptism of Jesus was to manifest him to Israel as the Messiah, and to all as the Son of God, according to John, for of that he said he "saw and bare record." If that is not true then John "bare record" of a mistake.

3. The context shows that Jesus did not receive the bap-tism of John. Though John baptized him, it was not "John's baptism." The baptism of Jesus was singular-stands alone and apart from all others before and after-was peculiar in purpose and in manifestation of his messianic mission. But

John's baptism was, first, for those who believed on the One to come; second, the baptism of repentance; third, for the remission of sins; fourth, to those who confessed their sins; fifth, and those who did not qualify were rejected.

4. The conclusions from the premises are: first, that John's baptism was not modern Baptist baptism; second, that to reject John's baptism was to reject God, therefore to reject the baptism commanded by Jesus is to reject Christ. Third, that the baptism taught and administered by Baptists today contradicts John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and all of his apostles.

(2) It is argued that baptism is not mentioned in such passages as Jno. 3:16, and not being mentioned it must not be an essential.

But "repentance" is not mentioned in Jno. 3:16: "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Is repentance essential? It is not men-tioned in Jno. 3:16. But it is "included," someone says. Well, if it "includes" repentance when it is unmentioned, it may on the same principle "include" baptism unmentioned.

Verse 15 says "may in him have eternal life" (R. V.) "may" express choice; and "in him" denotes where, the place where the life is received and enjoyed. Anything that is received and enjoyed "in him"-in Christ-certainly implies obedience to the conditions of getting into Christ, and we are "baptized into Christ" Gal. 3:27.

In the same chapter-Jno. 3:36-Jesus said, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life," and it is insist-ed that faith is the only condition of obtaining it. But again the passage says nothing of repentance, and if it excludes baptism because it is not mentioned, it would exclude re-pentance also because it is not mentioned. Furthermore, if it means that the believer "hath everlasting life" in pos-


session unconditionally, then the statement in the same verse that the unbeliever "shall not see life," is uncondition-al also. If one remains a saved believer because one "hath everlasting life," then the other remains a lost unbeliever because "he shall not see life." One statement is no less con-ditional or unconditional than the other. In the Revised Version the passage reads: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

But in I Jno. 5:11 John says "this life is in the Son." In order therefore to obtain "this life" one must get into the Son. Now, how does one get into Christ. All of my hearers should know the answer to that question by this time: "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ"-Gal. 3:27.

Another text used by faith only preachers who attempt to prove that salvation comes before baptism, is Jno. 5:24. "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemna-tion; but is passed from death unto life."

A careful notice of this passage will show that it proves too much for those who use it as a proof of eternal life by faith before baptism. The text says he that "believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation." Now, the One who sent Jesus is God. The faith only preacher has the Jews saved when they believe on God, hence before faith in Christ! The order would be this:

(1) hearing; (2) believing on God; (3) everlasting life; (4) shall not come into condemnation. Actually, of course, the passage offers everlasting life to the Jews conditionally who believed on God, who sent the Christ. But the faith only method of argument used on other passages to eliminate baptism will eliminate believing on Christ from this passage.

The order for the Jews was this: (1) believe on God;

(2) repent toward God; (3) believe on the Christ whom


God should send; (4) the baptism of John, believing on the One to come after. (Acts 19:4-5)

The order for all who are under the gospel is this: (1) hear the gospel; (2) believe on the Christ;; (3) repent of sins;

(4) baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

The same reasoning employed to prove salvation by faith in Christ before baptism by certain passages on faith, will prove salvation by faith in God before either repentance toward God or faith in Jesus Christ. And that which proves too much, proves nothing.

(3) It is urged that we are "saved by grace through faith- Eph. 2:8-and not "of works"-therefore not by baptism.

But baptism is not "works," the performance of which men may boast. In Tit. 3:5 Pauls says: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration." He saved us by the washing of regeneration-which is baptism-but not by works which we have done. Therefore baptism is not a work which "we" have done-baptism is a work that God does, namely, "the washing of regeneration." It is what God does in baptism. Does salvation by grace exclude some-thing that God does? Well, Paul told Titus that God saves us by the washing of regeneration (baptism), according to his mercy; not by works which we have done. Baptism is therefore the work of God and not the work of man, and cannot be the tiling referred to by Paul in Eph. 2:8 where he says "not of works." That passage refers to the works of the law and not to obedience to the gospel. Besides that, the Ephesians had all been baptized. They were baptized mem-bers of the church when Paul addressed them, who had been "sanctified and cleansed with the washing of water by the word." The effort to get baptism out of such passages is an example of the sophistry employed to deceive the guileless and turn them from the word of God.


(4) A similar effort is made to misapply Rom. 4:3-4, where the apostle tells us that "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," and "to him that work-eth is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt."

Before this was said of Abraham, he had already been "called," and when he was called he "obeyed." Before this instance mentioned by Paul, which was "counted" unto Abra-ham for "righteousness," Abraham had already built altars unto God-had worshipped God; Melchizedek had blessed him, and Abraham had paid him tithes; and God had said to him, "I am thy shield," according to Gen. 12-14-15. All of that is certainly strange language for God to be using to an alien! The example of Abraham in Rom. 4 cannot be used as a case of alien justification at all.

Furthermore the expression, "to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt," could not refer to baptism, or any act of obedience, for the following reason: If salvation is of grace it is not of debt, that is, God does not owe a man salvation, it is not a debt that God owes a man. If a man works for $10.00, to pay him the ten dollars is not grace, it is the payment of a debt. Well, if in Rom. 4:4, the work referred to means baptism, then it would follow that if a man is baptized God would owe him salva-tion! Baptism is not in that category of works. For a man to be baptized does not bring God in debt to the man. If so, the passage should read: "To him that is baptized is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt"! If that is true no man should ever be baptized at all. Baptism is obedience to God and is not a work "not reckoned of grace, but of debt"-it does not bring God in debt to the sinner nor eliminate God's grace from the salvation of a sinner. The works referred to are the works of the law, which re-quired perfect obedience to be justified. If the law was kept perfectly, and the man was justified by perfect obedience to the law, without any sin on his part at all, he would not need any grace-his salvation would be a debt, owed to him,


no grace. But man has sinned; he has broken the law; he cannot claim salvation as a debt owed to him for a perfect keeping of the law; therefore it requires grace to save him- his works cannot; hence, his salvation is of grace, not of works. But his salvation of grace, not of debt, does not eliminate obedience; and therefore, does not exclude baptism. The passage clearly has no bearing on the command to be baptized, and is a misapplied scripture when preachers use it to prove that we are saved by something without baptism.

(5) The same principle applies to Rom. 3:26, "that he

might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

He justifies whom? He justifies the believer-the one who has already believed. Then one must become a believer in order to be a subject of justification. The passage says that he "might" be the justifier of the believer. The justification comes after the believing-God justifies a believer, not an unbeliever-that he "might" justify the believer, but when? When is faith exercised? When does God justify the be-liever? Before and without baptism? The text does not so teach, and would contradict every passage in the New Testa-ment on baptism, if it did so teach.

(6) It is insisted that 1 Jno. 5:1 "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God," teaches that one is saved before he is baptized.

But John was talking to people who had all been bap-tized many years before. Furthermore he says in chapter 4, verse 7 "every one that loveth is born of God." Which comes first-faith or love? If faith comes first, and if "who-soever believeth is born of God" means that one is born of God the moment he believes, then he is born of God before he loves God. But if love comes first, then "every one that loveth is born of God" means that one is born of God at the moment he loves God, and that gets him born of God before he believes. Yet the effort is made to make the passage mean that since one believes before he is baptized, and the one that believes is born of God, then he is born of God before he is baptized. Anybody should be able to see that the same argument will prove that one is born before he loves, or else born before he believes, and therefore proves too much.

Again, to show the fallacy of the reasoning-preachers tell us that repentance comes before faith. Since one could not love God before he believes in God, but repentance comes before faith, then repentance comes before love, and the doctrine has a penitent man hating God!

We need only to turn to Jno. 2:29 where it tells us what kind of a believer is born of God. "Ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him." Peter said "he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

It is said that if we are not accepted before baptism, or born before baptism, then there is no work of righteousness before baptism. But on the same line of talk, if repentance comes before faith, then repentance is either not a work of righteousness or else one is saved before faith! If faith comes before love, then either faith is not a work of right-eousness, or else one is saved before he loves God! It must be plain to all of you, my friends, that these passages must be taken together, not apart. They were addressed to peo-ple who had been baptized many years before, and John reviews what they had done to be born of God-they had believed, they had loved God, they had confessed Jesus the Christ, they had done righteousness-they were thus born of God. The man is hard pressed for an argument who will attempt to use these passages as proof-texts for salvation by faith without baptism.

So when it is insisted that if baptism is a condition of salvation it contradicts numerous passages on faith, the objection rests on the assumption that the various scrip-tures referred to, suspend salvation on faith alone, the thing that not one of the passages in question says or does. When salvation is affirmed of any one thing at any one time, it cannot depend upon less than the thing of which it is affirmed, though it may depend upon more-something not mentioned in that particular place. I believe we have given enough examples of that rule to make it possible, for all to see it- unless they are looking the other way.

(7) It is argued that certain contingencies which render it impossible for people to be baptized prove that baptism is not necessary to salvation.

1. It puts salvation out of reach of humble people, if they must be baptized.

But it is not what people cannot do that condemns them. If there is no ability there is no responsibility; if no re-sponsibility, no accountability. We have only contended that baptism is a condition of pardon to responsible men and women-gospel subjects. The same contingency would argue against faith, to the same degree and extent.

2. If baptism is necessary, then a man dying in a desert, or on the battlefield, would be lost.

First, let me say that I would rather risk their cases than the preacher's who is trying to evade the scriptures and who rejects what the Lord says. But, second, there are various classes into which people may fall: (a) physical impossibility;

(b) a moral impossibility; (c) wilful neglect. But all cases of clemency belong to the Judge, and are outside the law. The New Testament states the law. Clemency belongs to God. If clemency will be reserved for those who have been kept in profound ignorance of the gospel, it will not excuse the "willingly ignorant," nor mitigate the sins of preachers who have made it their business to keep them in their ignorance, nor furnish the way of escape to any in their rejection of the word of God.


3. It makes salvation depend on the third party, if bap-tism is necessary.

There is no account in the book of Acts of any conversion without the third party-not even of Lydia, in the country of Macedonia, where not one gospel preacher had ever set foot on European soil. The New Testament mentions the conversion of many men and women, thousands of them, at times and places far apart, and the third party was always present. Check the record and see. The third party was required by the Great Commission, which says "Go preach," and they were sent into all the world to every creature.

The same contingency would exist and apply to both the knowledge of God and faith in Christ. Are these essential? "So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God" Rom. 10:13-17. The same tape line that measures the distance to salvation at the point of baptism, will measure the distance at the point of knowledge, and of faith; and the same contingencies that would in such sophistry set baptism out of the gospel plan, would eliminate the knowledge of God and exclude faith in Jesus Christ, or any other condition involving a human agency or element. Apply the same principle to preaching-why preach? Apply it also to the translation of the scriptures into any language, or to the teaching of the scriptures to anybody in any land? If human agency is not to be reckoned, why translate the scriptures, why preach, why send missionaries, why try to convert any-body, anywhere, any time, anyhow?

What about all the radio preaching these objectors to baptism are doing? Can you measure the distance to their radio broadcast with a tape line? And what about the "con-tributions" they beg to carry on-is that not a sort of a third party? In that case salvation depends on something. If the times are hard there will be less salvation; and if the times are good there will be more salvation; and if the banks are"broke" there will be nosalvation!


4. But will people go to hell just because they are not baptized, just for that, we are asked?

Suppose you put it another way: Will men go to hell for rejecting God? Now read Lk. 7:30 where it says the Phari-sees and lawyers rejected God when they were not baptized. Ask yourself that one, and quit quibbling with God's word and whimpering about what it says. As well ask: Would God condemn the whole race just because Eve ate an apple? Anybody ought to see that there is more involved in the question than simply that-it involves the sovereignty of God and the majesty of his law.

No, one is not lost "just because" he is not baptized-he was lost already, and Jesus commanded him to be baptized to be saved. A man is not drowning "just because" he does not get into the boat or take hold of a rope. He is drowning because of where he is-because he is in the water. But he must take the means offered to be rescued. Men are lost because they are in sin-and they must obey the gospel to be saved from sin.

The Universalist argues against faith as a condition of salvation in the same way that the denominationalist argues against baptism, and the infidel argues against either salva-tion or damnation, believing there is neither, in the same way that both the Universalist and the denominationalist argue against the condition of faith on the one hand and of baptism on the other. It all amounts to a rejection of God's word altogether.

5. But if baptism is essential, it condemns those who cannot be baptized.

And if the knowledge of God and faith in Christ are essential it condemns countless other millions who have had no opportunity to either know God or believe in Jesus Christ. If salvation by faith can be harmonized with that condition, then the command to be baptized can also be harmonized with it, by the same argument. He who tries to prove that


baptism is not essential to salvation by one who cannot be baptized is a failure as a teacher. At best it would only prove that (1) infants (2) idiots and (3) those who cannot be baptized, are exceptions to God's law, and that would still have no bearing on the question, as it effects those who are responsible to law and accountable to God.

6. But it unchristianizes others who are unbaptized, if baptism is necessary.

No-you cannot dehorn a muley! An alien cannot be unchristianized, neither can you unchristianize a Christian by preaching the thing that makes one, and if he is not one, how could he be unchristianized?

7. But if baptism is essential it damns our parents and ancestors who died without baptism.

To weak minds these excuses are solid objections against what the Lord said on the subject of baptism, but just apply it to preaching to a Jew, or to a Chinaman, on justification by faith in Christ, or the necessity of knowing God. They have parents and ancestors, too, and could both reply: Do you mean that my parents who died in China were lost? Or, do you mean that my Jewish father and mother are lost who did not believe in Christ? Did my devout ancestors who never heard of your God, or your Christ, die unsaved? There is nothing that does not depend upon some contingency of some sort. It is our obligation to preach the law on the subject, and remember that clemency belongs to the judge.

(8) Again we are reminded that Mark 16:16 does not say "he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned."

And let us remind you again of a few things on that point:

1. Because Jesus did not say one certain thing in a cer-tain form does not mean that what he did say is not true- namely, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."


1. To say "he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned," would make damnation conditioned upon the lack of two things instead of the lack of one, and before a man could be damned he must be both an unbeliever and unbaptized-for the presence of either one without the other would equal his salvation.

2. Can an unbeliever be baptized? No-he could not if he would; he would not if he could; and it would not do him any good if he did.

Luke did not say in Lk. 13:3, "Except ye repent and do not believe ye shall perish." Yet repentance comes before faith in theology. So, I suppose, one could not perish who had repented, but could not be saved who had not believed. If Mark 16:16 means only the believer is damned, then Lk.

13:3 means that only the unrepentant shall perish, hence, faith is eliminated by their argument exactly as they would eliminate baptism.

Every passage that the advocates of salvation by faith only, before and without baptism, can offer, falls short of proving their point. There is no contingency that can be supposed against the divine command to be baptized that does not act as a boomerang, to rebound and burst their own pet theories of a plan of salvation all their own, not of God. I believe that we have shown that every passage bearing on the issue sustains the principle that the faith that saves is the faith that obeys.

(9) There are so many passages, it is still insisted, that so plainly say that we are saved by faith.

Yes, but is there one that says we are saved by faith alone? Take the whole cluster of passages together, singly or col-lectively, 'and not one can be perverted to prove, or twisted to teach, salvation by faith before baptism.

1. Jno. 20:31: "These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that


believing ye might have life through his name." This verse simply states that the one believing may have life-the one who believes has the privilege of life offered to him "through his name."

1. Acts 20:43: "To him gave all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall re-ceive remission of sins." The passage simply states and de-clares the way believers are to receive remission of sins. How shall a believer receive remission of sins? "Through his name." Then how is remission of sins received through his name? "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins"-Acts 2:38. "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concern-ing the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women"-Acts 8:12. That answers the question.

2. 1 Jno. 5:1: We are again told that "whosoever be-lieveth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." Yes, we know it, and believe it. And it says "is"-yes, is born of God. But John was referring to the spiritual status of those born of God. They were born of God-that was their status then, and we are born of God now-that is our status who have obeyed the gospel. John affirms the same thing of those who love God, confess that Jesus is Christ, and who do righteous-ness, but it does not put being born of God at the moment of any one of these things, ahead of any of the others, or to the exclusion of any one of them.

(10) In spite of all the plain statements it is still insisted that even the expression "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38 is susceptible to various and different interpreta-tions; therefore, the meaning of baptism for the remission of sins is uncertain.

If that were true, the meaning of it could be determined by comparing Acts 2:38 with Mark 16:16, and Acts 22:16, which teach the same thing in words susceptible to no in-terpretation or juggling. But Acts 2:38 does not leave the matter in doubt at all. The phrase "for the remission of sins" in that verse does not modify "be baptized" only-it is "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins." Is "re-pent for the remission of sins" susceptible to more than one interpretation? That is subject to only one, not two inter-pretations. Then to add the second verb to the sentence, making it read "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" would not change it and make it susceptible to two interpretations.

(11) But salvation is the free gift of God, and if it is a gift, how could it be essential to be baptized to get it?

In Acts 27:24 God told Paul that all the lives on that ship-276 lives-had been "given" to him. "God hath given thee all them that sail with thee." But in verse 31 Paul told them, "Except ye abide in the ship ye cannot be saved." How could they have been lost if God had given Paul their lives? How could it be "essential" for them to abide in the ship, or do anything at all, if their lives were already a "gift"? It shows that the gift of their lives was conditional, conditioned on their obedience.

In the sixth chapter of Joshua the Old Testament record tells us that Jericho had been given to Joshua-"I have given into thy hand Jericho." But after telling them that, God commanded them, as follows: "Ye shall compass the city . . . ye shall go round about the city . . . ye shall compass the city seven times ...shall blow with the trumpets ...all the people shall shout with a great shout, and the wall of the city shall fall down flat." It would be just as logical to say that because God had given Jericho to Joshua, obedience to these commands was not essential!

If it is true that salvation being a gift, it is all of grace, and no act is necessary, then there is no moral agency in-volved in either salvation or damnation. It would be all a matter of naked omnipotence, and a man could no more


be blamed for not being saved than a dead man could be blamed for not rising from the dead!

(12) Baptism only represents salvation-just a representa-tion.

The Lord's Supper only represents the body and the blood of the Lord, but we must attend to it, observe it, in order to get the benefit of the thing represented. Baptism does repre-sent the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and we must be baptized in order to reach the benefits of his death, his blood and his resurrection.

(13) We are saved by prayer, how can it be necessary to be baptized?

Are we saved by faith? Yes; is the prompt reply. Very well, one cannot pray without faith, and if we are saved the moment we believe, that puts salvation before prayer! They meet themselves going in circles, trying to run around these scriptures on baptism.

(14) If God promises salvation by faith, then adds bap-tism to it, does that not make God dishonest?

If a man prices a horse at $100, then adds $50 to it, would that not make the man dishonest?

Apply the same kind of reasoning to the doctrine of re-pentance before faith. If God promises salvation to the penitent, then adds faith to it, would that make God dishonest? Or, putting faith first, if God promises salvation to a believer and adds repentance to it, does it make God dishonest? Such things are too silly to notice except that they are regarded by some people, even some preachers, as solid objections to baptism as a condition of salvation. So silly as it is, their sophistry must be exposed.

(15) Baptism only puts one into the church, but is not essential to entering heaven.

If that is true, it requires more to get into a Baptist church than it does to get into heaven! It puts the Baptist church above heaven, a step higher, at least. So the only way a Baptist could get to heaven, I suppose, would be to fall out of the church-but they cannot fall! ! There is something said in the Bible about answering the fool according to his folly!

The time was when there was only one local church on the earth. According to Baptists themselves that church was the kingdom-it was all the kingdom that existed. But baptism being essential to entrance into the church, it was therefore, necessary to entrance into the kingdom. There-fore, if one is saved without baptism, he is saved outside the kingdom of God. But just as the one and only church, local church, once constituted the kingdom on earth, all such congregations today make up that kingdom. Just as certain then as one cannot be a member of the church without bap-tism, one is out of the kingdom without baptism.

Jesus said to Nicodemus, "Except ye be born of water and of the Spirit ye cannot enter the kingdom of God." To be born again makes one a child of God. To be born again puts one into the kingdom. The kingdom of Christ is com-posed of all members of all the churches of Christ. But one cannot be in the church without baptism; it follows there-fore that one cannot be in the kingdom without baptism. Hence, no kingdom, no birth; no birth, no child; no baptism -neither birth nor child.

Finally, when routed from every scripture that they offer to off-set what the Bible teaches on baptism, and when every dodge and twist has been wrested from them, these preachers will say in a taunting tone that even Alex-ander Campbell himself did not teach that baptism was ac-tually essential to salvation. Why then were the Baptists of that day so bitter against him? Did they oppose him so bitterly because he taught that baptism was not essential to


salvation? Why did they hurl the charge of teaching "water salvation" against him?

Suppose Campbell did or did not teach this or that on baptism, or anything else? The Presbyterians could prove sprinkling for baptism by Campbell, for he was once a Presbyterian. There was once a time when Campbell believed and taught inherent depravity, and other erroneous things. He started out a Presbyterian, found that they were wrong on the action of baptism and other matters, and left them. He then affiliated with Baptist associations (though he never became a member of the Baptist church) until he found that they were wrong on everything, and he quit even "associating" with them. As he learned the truth, the full truth, he accepted it and preached it.

We are not Campbellites. We do not follow any man. But I do not like to see misrepresentations; they should be corrected, and the perverters put to flight. Since a lot of Baptist preachers today are telling members of the church that even Alexander Campbell did not teach that baptism is essential to salvation, and have gone so far as to say that Campbell never even used the word "essential" in connection with baptism in all of his writings, I will just read; and let you see and hear, what Campbell actually said. From a series of long articles on the design of baptism, in which Camp-bell defended the same teaching that I am defending now, the following strong language regarding the meaning of bap-tism, I quote:

"In my debate with Mr. McCalla in Kentucky, 1823, on this topic, I contended that it was a divine institution de-signed for putting the legitimate subject of it in actual pos-session of the remission of sins-that to every believing subject it did formally and in fact convey to him the forgive-ness of sins." Christian Baptist, page 401.

"In the third place I proceed to show that we have the most explicit proof that God forgives sins for the name's sake


of his son, or when the name of Jesus Christ is named upon us in immersion, so soon as our bodies are put under water, at that very instant (in and by the act of immersion) our former or old sins are all washed away, provided only that wearetruebelievers." Christian Baptist, page 416.

"I say thatitis quite sufficientto show thatin the first proclamation by the holy apostles, forgiveness of sins and Christian immersion were inseparably connected together. Peter, to whom was committed the keys, opened the kingdom of heaven in this manner, and made repentance, or reforma-tion, and immersion, equally necessary to forgiveness." Chris-tian Baptist, page 416-17

"That it is expressly said, and explicitly taught, that God forgives men's sins in the act of immersion." Christian Baptist, page 421.

Faith is not more evidently connected with immersion than is immersion with the forgiveness of sins. In the ancient gospel it was first a belief in Jesus; next immersion; then forgiveness." Christian Baptist, page 423.

"We connect faith with immersion as ESSENTIAL to forgiveness-and, therefore, as said of old "according to your faith, so be it unto you-so say we of immersion." Christian Baptist, page 436.

And these preachers claim that they have been students of Alexander Campbell's writings. Students of Campbell, indeed! They are perverters of Campbell, of the word of God, and of everything else that is true.

It is for the benefit of some who do not know any better, and to rebuke some who do know better, that these references are made. My purpose in it is not merely to inform people of what Alexander Campbell taught. What a man teaches has nothing to do with what the New Testament says-unless he teaches what it says. We do not follow any man. The pur-pose is to expose the rank unreliability and utter lack of ver-


acity on the part of men who profess to mold the religious beliefs of thousands of sincere but misguided people in the denominational churches today. When any man exhibits such a reckless disregard for facts, biblical and otherwise, he is devoid of truth; and in the language of John the apostle, "he is a liar and the truth is not in him."



As Paul said to the Hebrews: "Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum:"

(1) Baptism stands between the sinner and salvation- Mk. 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

(2) Baptism stands between the sinner and remission- Acts 2:38: "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins."

(3) Baptism stands between the sinner and the washing away of sins-Acts 22:16: "Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins."

(4) Baptism stands between the sinner and rejoicing- Acts 8:39: "And when they were come up out of the water . . . he went on his way rejoicing."

(5) Baptism stands between the sinner and calling on the name of the Lord-Acts 22:16: "Arise and be baptized . . . calling on the name of the Lord."

(6) Baptism stands between the sinner and the death of Christ-Rom. 6:3: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death"?

(7) Baptism stands between the sinner and the blood of Christ-Rom. 6:4: "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death."

(8) Baptism stands between the sinner and getting into Christ-Rom. 6:3: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ."


(9) Baptism stands between the sinner and the resur-rection-Col. 2:12: "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him."

(10) Baptism stands between the sinner and the new life-Rom. 6:4: "Even so we also should walk in newness of life."

(11) Baptism stands between the sinner and putting on Christ-Gal. 3:27: "For as many of you as have been bap-tized into Christ, have put on Christ."

(12) Baptism stands between the sinner and cleansing -Eph. 5:26: "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word."

(13) Baptism stands between the sinner and sanctifica-tion-Eph. 5:26: "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word."

(14) Baptism stands between the sinner and justification -1 Cor. 6:11: "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

(15) Baptism stands between the sinner and becoming a new creature-2 Cor. 5:17: "Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creature"-"As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ-Gal. 3:27.

(16) Baptism stands between the sinner and the one body -1 Cor. 12:13: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body."

(17) Baptism stands between the sinner and receiving the blessings of the Holy Spirit-1 Cor. 12:13: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body . . . and have been all made to drink into one Spirit"-"Repent ye, and be bap-tized every one of you . . . and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"-Acts 2:38.


(18) Baptism stands between the sinner and regenera-tion-Tit. 3:5: "According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration."

(19) Baptism stands between the sinner and entrance into the kingdom of God-Jno. 3:3-5: "Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God . . . except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

(20) Baptism stands between the sinner and relation with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit-Matt. 28:19: "Baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

There is not a chapter nor a verse, nor any part of one, which can be employed to sustain an argument against bap-tism as a condition of pardon in the New Testament plan of salvation.

Do these multiplied passages mean nothing at all, my friends? Let me beg you, as your friend, as one interested in the salvation of your soul-all of you who hold to these denominational dogmas of error-to cease your opposition to the word of God, and your resistance to the Holy Spirit, and accept the plain import of these indisputable passages on the how and the what of baptism.

We have gone through the New Testament together in this study. The central truth of every fact presented is that the command to be baptized derives its sole authority from Jesus Christ, the head of the church. It does not make bap-tism your saviour-Jesus Christ is your saviour. Neither faith nor repentance is your saviour for the same reason-Jesus Christ is the sinner's saviour, but you must believe, repent and be baptized, because the saviour ordained it and com-manded it, as a condition of pardon, remission and salvation.

And now, my unbaptized and alien friend, you will either obey God or rebel against God in the matter of obedience


to the gospel. Concerning the preaching of John, Luke said: "And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, jus-tified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." If to reject John's baptism was to reject God, what is it to reject the baptism that Jesus Christ commands? Will you classify yourselves with the wilfully disobedient? Or, will you be among the humble men of the earth who bow to the sovereign will of the Son of God, and be justified in obedience to his will and word. Submit to the Master of men; what he commands, obey, and be saved.



We are grateful to God for his providence and to you for your presence. Audiences such as we have had in this meet-ing flatly reverse the sentiment often heard that people have lost interest in the discussion of Bible themes. It was said by quite a prominent preacher not long ago, that the time of what we call "evangelistic meetings" had passed, that people are no longer interested in such. But a gathering such as this of interested people all over the land is a sufficient answer to that kind of an idea. Skepticism comes and goes, some-what in waves. Political and social conditions often react on religious conditions. Minds of people are operating much alike on everything. So when we have a state of political and social unrest, that reacts in religion. It causes some to think that the gospel is on the way out. But it is not true. I am often inclined to say what a certain one said concerning Jesus, when another doubted reports of what he was doing: "Come and see." To anyone who thinks the public has lost interest in Bible preaching, we can say, "Come and see."

I read to you now from 1 Cor. 10: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written. The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all of these things happened unto them for our examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."

I have read twelve verses from 1 Cor. 10.

The subject for this lesson has to do with the theological, denominational dogma, that is referred to as "the impossi-bility of apostasy." People not acquainted with theological nomenclature may not recognize, at a glance, the meaning of some of these expressions. The doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy, as taught by certain denominational schools, means that a child of God, one who has been saved by the blood of Christ, cannot fall away and be finally lost. It is often put in the expression "once in grace, always in grace." When people thought the mourner had to come to the altar to agonize and pray for weeks before he could "get it," we used to hear it like this: "If you seek it you can't find it; if you find it you can't get it; if you get it you can't lose it, and if you lose it you never had it"! Even now when we point out actual examples of apostasy, the stock answer is that "they never had it"-if they ever really had it, they could never really lose it. So goes the idea that it is impossible for a child of God, one saved by the blood of Christ, to ever fall away and be lost.

This brings us to the discussion of the proposition, af-firmatively stated: A child of God, one saved by the blood of Christ, can so sin as to be finally lost."




It is important that the words which must be repeatedly used be understood, so that the reference to them shall not be misunderstood.

(1) The meaning of the term "saved."

Jesus Christ said: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." His apostle, Peter, said: "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins." Salvation and remission mean the same thing-Mark 16 and Acts 2-for the reason that when Jesus said, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," he meant saved from past sins, or remission. That has no reference to sins of the future. Baptism is a condition of remission of past sins.

(2) The meaning of remission.

Remission means to remit-to send back. This idea was impressed upon me forcefully a few years ago. I was on my way to a meeting and was about to be late. Driving through a speed zone, not being acquainted with that particular area, I did not observe the speed limit, and "sailed on through." A motorcycle officer drove up beside me, and said, "In a hurry aren't you? I said, "Yes, sir, really I am, in quite a hurry, as I am about to be late at an appointment to preach at the next county seat; and I will be much obliged if you will let me go ahead." He looked at me with a skeptical eye, and in a sarcastic tone of voice, said: "How do I know you are a preacher?" That is the first time I had discovered that I did not look like one! "Well," I said, "if you have any doubt about it, just take a seat on the bank for about an hour and a half and I will show you!" He was not inclined to accept my proposition, but said, "I will give you a ticket, and let you talk to the judge about the preacher business." I took the ticket and wrote the judge a letter: Your Honor, I did not aim to violate the law, I teach people to obey both


the laws of God and the laws of the land. Here are the cir-cumstances. Being a preacher, it is not convenient for me to pay this fine, and if you can get it out of my brethren, you can beat anything I have ever been able to do! So if you will just consider this a case of clemency and remit this fine, I will feel much obliged. It either struck his sense of humor or his sense of sympathy, and he remitted the fine.

Remission means "sending back." God sends back sins. God counts them as though they had never been committed. But there are certain terms upon which remission can be enjoyed. All have sinned. There is not a person of ac-countable age in this auditorium tonight who has not come under the guilt of sin. That being true, the only way to be saved is by forgiveness. That is the meaning of the terms, "shall be saved" and "remission of sins," as we use the ex-pressions.

When Jesus said "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," he simply stated the conditions upon which God pardons men, forgives, saves, remits the sins of men.

(3) Salvation, past, present and future.

"Shall be saved"-what is the import of "shall be saved"? If it does not refer to being saved from past sins then it would of necessity refer to being saved from future sins. If "shall be saved" refers to salvation from past sins, then the baptism of a believer is a condition of salvation from past sins. But if "shall be saved" refers to the future, then the baptism of a believer would be a condition of salvation from future sins. So how does it help the case for preachers to say that Mark

16:16 does not say "past sins"? It either means saved from past sins or saved in heaven, one or the other. If it does not mean saved from past sins, then it would have to mean saved in heaven. So if baptism, in that case, would not be a con-dition of salvation from past sins, it would be a condition of salvation in heaven. It makes baptism a condition of salvation somewhere in the scheme of things. If not from past sins,


from future sins; if from past sins, then baptism is for the re-mission of past sins. If from future sins, then baptism is a condition of going to heaven. In either case baptism stands between the sinner and entrance into heaven.

But there is a present salvation, continuous, co-extensive with Christian living. John says "if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin"- Jno. 1:7-9. By baptism "into death" we obtain the benefits of Christ's blood, and are cleansed from past sins. But by fellowship with the body-in Christ-his blood continually cleanses us from sin. This continuous cleansing is condition-ed upon "walking in the light" as stated in verse 7, and in verse 9, "if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" -that is, to keep us cleansed, as we obey these divine instruc-tions.

(4) A child of God.

The child of God is one born of God-the person him-self, therefore what he is. "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God . . . except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the king-dom of God . . . that which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which isborn of the Spirit is spirit ...The wind blow-eth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but cannot tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit"-Jno. 3:3-8. Jesus did not say that the new birth is mysterious, or like the wind that blows. He did not say "so is the new birth"; and he did not say "so is conversion"; and he did not say "so is the operation of the Holy Spirit." He said "so is every one that is born of the Spirit"-so is every one; that is, so is the one that is born. It is the inner man, the invisible man, the person of man, the spirit of man, that is the subject of the new birth. The Holy Spirit is the begetting agent; the seed is God's word; water is the element through obedience in


baptism; the spirit of man is the subject, or person, because we "obey from the heart the form of doctrine" (Rom. 6:17); and the new covenant is "the mother of us all" (Gal. 4:26), of which we are born and whose children we become in covenant relation with God.

A child of God is therefore one who is in covenant rela-tion with God; and he is in covenant relation with God through the terms of the new covenant, obedience to the gospel, which is the new birth. "Wherefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature"-2 Cor. 5:17. Now, it is just a plain statement of fact to say that it takes the new birth to make one a new creature. But one is a new crea-ture "in Christ"-so the process that puts one into Christ is the process that makes a new creature, and the thing that makes the new creature is the new birth, therefore the act, or the thing, that puts one into Christ is the act, or thing, in which the new birth takes place. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" -Gal. 3:27. "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." Such a person is a child of God and all such are "no more strangers and foreigners (aliens) but fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God"- Eph. 2:19. In short, the person who has obeyed the gospel is a child of God, born again, and saved by the blood of the new covenant, the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

(5) Can so sin.

Take first the word "sin"-can a child of God sin? Well, John says, "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us"-i Jno. 1:8. Some children of God did sin, and any. child of God who says that he does not sin, has no sin, is deceived-and John said "we", which included himself, and all the children of God addressed. Can a child of God lie? If not, why did Paul write to children of God and say "lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds"? Was Paul exhorting these people who had "put off the old man" and had become new


creatures not to do a thing that he knew a child of God could not do? Or is it a sin for a child of God to lie? If not, why is it a sin for anybody to lie? If so, then a child of God can sin if he can lie, and Paul said one could lie. Can a child of God steal? Can a child of God commit adultery? Writing to the Roman Christians-God's children in Rome, Paul said: "Thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adul-tery, dost thou commit adultery?"-Rom. 2:21-22. Paul says a child of God can do such things-if and when they do, is it a sin? If not, to do such things is not a sin; if so, a child of God can sin. Can a child of God get drunk? "And be not drunk with wine wherein is excess"-Eph. 5:18. Paul told the children of God at Ephesus not to get drunk, Is it a sin to get drunk? Well, we are told that drunkenness will keep one out of the kingdom of God and that a drunk-ard cannot inherit the kingdom of God. And Paul says a child of God can get drunk. Can a child of God lust? Peter says, "Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pil-grims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul"-1 Pet. 2:11. It will not do any good to say that it is the flesh that lusts, not the spirit, for James says, "Do you think the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwell-eth in us lusteth to envy"-Jas. 4:5. James said that it is the "spirit" that lusts; and Jesus said: "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: these are the things which defile a man"-Matt. 15:19-20. Since these things proceed "out of the heart" it is the spirit that does the sinning, and since such things can proceed "out of the heart" of a child of God, it follows that a child of God can sin with his spirit.

Take next the term of the proposition which reads "so sin"-can a child of God so sin as to be lost? John writes to God's children exhorting them "that ye sin not"-1 Jno. 2:1-which of course they could do, else his exhortation would have been wholly unnecessary and gratuitous. Then he adds, "And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." Again he says: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness"-1 Jno. 1:9. So a child of God can sin; to be forgiven a child of God must confess his sin; if a child of God does not confess his sin, repent of it and pray, he will not be forgiven. If he dies in such a state, will he be saved? Jesus said of those who die in their sins, "whither I go ye cannot come." If they cannot go to heaven where Jesus is because they die in their sins, and they cannot go to hell where the devil is because they cannot be lost- where dotheygo?

A child of God can sin-a child of God can so sin as to be lost. If not, why confess, why pray to be forgiven? A child of God can do the tilings that damn his soul, and if he dies in such sins, he will be lost.

The phrase "so sin" suggests extent. In Rom. 8:13 Paul says, "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die." He had just called them "brethren," so he was addressing members of the church, children of God. But one must be alive to die; so he was addressing people who were "alive." It can-not refer to physical death, because we die physically any-way, no matter how we live, and it cannot refer to the sin-ner because the sinner is already spiritually dead. Therefore it refers to spiritual death and is addressed to people who are spiritually alive, who were told that "if ye walk after the flesh ye shall die"-therefore a child of God can die, spiritually die, die in sin. That is evidently the reason James said to "convert a brother" from the error of his way is to "save a soul from death"-save a brother's soul from death. So, "brethren," said Paul, "if ye walk after the flesh ye shall die."


(6) As to be finally lost. The concluding term of the proposition is "finally lost" -a child of God can "sin"; a child of God can "so sin"; a child of God can so sin as to be "finally lost." It has already been shown that a child of God can get drunk, commit adultery and lie. But in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 Paul says, "Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor ex-tortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." And after rebuking the Corinthians for the existence of some of these sins, such as the case of incest in chapter 5, in his second letter he writes as follows: "And lest, when I come again, my God shall humble me among you, and that I shall be-wail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed." Here it is shown that children of God in -the Corinthian church had "committed" these sins "already" and Paul feared that they had "not repented," a thing which he said would be very humiliating to him when he returned. Since Paul said in chapter 6, verse 10, of the first letter that those who "committed" such things could not inherit the kingdom of God and in the second letter, chapter 12, verse 21, he said some had "already" com-mitted them, and he feared they had "not repented"- what would be their state if they never repented at all? It

plainly states that they could not inherit the kingdom of God.

Furthermore, in Rev. 21:8 Jesus said that "all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death"-does that mean "all" liars, except regenerate liars?

Can a child of God become an unbeliever? Heb. 10:32-39 describes those who were: 1. enlightened; 2. endured; 3. had a better possession; 4. exhorted to cast not away their faith and reward; 5. but some did go back into unbelief, drawing back,


and shrank into perdition. If a child of God is saved because he is a believer, then when he "shrinks back" and becomes an unbeliever-is he still saved?

The answer to a set of questions settles the issue. Can a child of God call his brother a fool-and not be "in danger of hell fire"?-Matt. 5:28. Can a child of God lie, commit murder, adultery, steal and get drunk, and still inherit the kingdom of God-1 Cor. 6:9-10. Can a child of God do all of these things without sinning?-2 Cor. 12:21. If a child of God can so sin, and die. in such sins, will he be saved or lost? If saved, then these passages of scripture mean nothing; if lost, it is final. We conclude therefore that a child of God can sin, and die in sin, and therefore so sin as to be finally lost.



The doctrine of the absolute security of the believer had incipience in early centuries, a corresponding tenet to the doctrine of the inherent depravity of the alien sinner.

(1) A relic of Calvinism. The doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy is a hold-over of Calvinism, a relic of the old predestination and fore-ordination and unconditional election and reprobation the-ology: It is that old antiquated doctrine that God decreed before the world began that a certain elect number should be saved and a number just as certain and fixed could not be saved, neither class to be increased nor diminished, having been determined of God, irrevocably and unalterably before

the foundation of the world. It is the doctrine of uncon-ditional election and reprobation of the whole race of man.

This idea of the impossibility of apostasy simply grows out of it-the logical outcome of that old doctrine. It is simply this: If man's salvation has been settled from all eter-nity then he is bound to persevere. He is made that way. God made him a certain way, either a vessel to be saved,


or a vessel to be damned. He could not be or do otherwise. If that be true, then man is a mere machine. He is not a be-ing of free moral agency, of choice or of volition. He is a mere machine, in the hands of God. His salvation on one hand, or his damnation on the other, is simply a matter of naked omnipotence. He could not do anything one way or the other that would affect his salvation. If he is pre-destinated to be saved, he could not be lost, no matter what he does. And if he is foreordained to be damned, a repro-bate, then he could not do anything to be saved, and could not be saved no matter what he did. Thus the theory is the doctrine of divine discrimination and of providential par-tiality. But "God is no respecter of persons."

(2) The doctrine of direct converting power.

The proposition presupposes man to be wholly irrespon-sible and unaccountable. In the matter of salvation or in the matter of damnation-it is simply a case of naked omnipotence. God saves, God damns. No man can do any-thing to be saved, because the theory requires the direct operation of the Holy Spirit to regenerate him. After his conversion he cannot do anything to be damned, because the theory asserts that he cannot fall from grace.

Let me go to the board and illustrate that.

Jesus Christ said that "he Son of man shall come in the glory of the Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works"-Matt. 16:27. Paul the


apostle said that God "will render to every man according to his deeds"-Rom. 2:6. The apostle Peter said that the Father "judgeth according to every man's work"-1 Pet. 1:17. John saw hades deliver the dead in his vision, and said that "they were judged every man according to his works"- Rev. 20:13. If the Calvinistic doctrines of unconditional elec-tion and reprobation are truth, these statements in the Bible are false. If the denominational dogma of direct regenerating power is true, these passages are erroneous. If the theological

teaching of the several creeds on impossibility of apostasy is right, these passages and many other portions of the Bible are wrong.

According to this doctrine God does not judge the sinner according to his works, because he cannot do anything to be saved; and God does not judge the saved man according to his works, because he cannot do anything to be damned. Tell me how God judges every man according to his works? Every man falls into one class or the other-either an alien sinner or a child of God. If he does not judge the sinner according to his works, because the sinner cannot do any-thing to be saved (requires direct converting power); and he does not judge the Christian, or the saved man, according to his works, because he cannot do anything to be damned, (cannot fall from grace)-tell me then, how God judges every man according to his works.

Now if there are any preachers in Houston who would like to answer this question-just mull on it awhile and go to work on your answer. The question stares you squarely in the face.

The whole theological background of that theory is that before the sinner is saved, he is totally depraved. It is a threefold theory-a set of theological triplets-hereditary total depravity, the direct operation of the Holy Spirit to remove it, and the impossibility of apostasy after the old unregenerate nature has been removed. Theological triplets-as false as


any old superstition ever hatched in the medieval age of religious delusions, the cobwebbs of Calvinism.

(3) The tenet of total depravity.

The Bible nowhere recognizes the idea of inherent total depravity. David said that "the wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies"-Psa. 58:3. He did not say that they are estranged in the womb, but from the womb, and they "go" astray after they can "speak," and become "estranged." They go astray, they are not born astray.

I will put the "devil" on this end of the board, (and I'll move over to the other end!), and I write "God" on this end of the board. All right-now the record says that man goes astray after he is born-well, which way does he go? If he is born totally depraved, he is right where the devil is. He can-not go that way-toward the devil. A man cannot go where he already is. But he goes astray. Which way would he go? He would have to go away from the devil because he could not go toward the devil, being already there; so going away from the devil would be going astray. But going away from the devil is going toward God. So going toward God would be going astray, in the light of that doctrine.

What is the trouble? The theory has the person located wrong at first. Instead of locating him over there "at" the devil, to go through all of the sacramental ceremonies of Roman Catholic infant baptism to get the infant delivered from the devil's dominion, the Bible teaches that we are all born in a state of innocence-with God. Yes, God is "the father of spirits," in Heb. 12:9 we are told. Reaching the years of ability, responsibility and accountability, we go


astray. We are born on this end-with God, in a state of innocence. But one goes away from God, and if he goes far enough, keeps on going, he will go to the devil. He starts in that direction when he begins going astray, and he will get there if he keeps going.

The apostle Paul says the devil "seduces men." How could the devil seduce a totally depraved man? That fellow might seduce the devil, but I want to know how the devil could seduce him? Seducing a totally depraved man? There are many such passages. Men "depart," men "go astray," the devil "seduces" men and "evil men wax worse and worse." How could a totally depraved man "wax worse and worse"? There would have to be degrees in total depravity. But total means the whole thing. Depraved means to be bad. Hereditary means inherited. If man is totally depraved, he is wholly bad by nature-he is already "worse and worse," and could not "wax." He could neither get "worse" nor "worser"-he is totally depraved and that says it all. These scriptures show that the doctrine of inherent total depravity is wrong. The Bible does not teach it. Therefore, the doctrine of the direct operation of the Holy Spirit is wrong, because it is predicated on the false doctrine of inherent depravity. One false doctrine is founded on another, and a third false doctrine rests on the two. Get rid of the fundamental error of the inherent total depravity of man, and the foundation goes out from under the direct operation, impossibility of apostasy theories. The superstructure collapses when the foundation crumbles. That is why I believe in "laying the ax at the root of the tree." Cut the thing down at the root and let it fall- then dig up roots so it cannot sprout again!


(4) The theory of regeneration.

Pursuing the argument further, take the man before his conversion. They tell us he can not do anything good, be-cause he is totally depraved. If he visits the sick, it is not good; if he pays his debts, it is not good; if he loves his wife and children, it is not good-being a totally depraved sin-ner he can do nothing good-in him dwells no good thing. But after the Holy Spirit operates, removes that depraved nature, he is regenerated and he cannot sin, they tell us. Nothing then that he does is sin-it is just the old body that sins, the man himself cannot sin and he cannot be lost. Before the Spirit regenerates him, if he tells the truth it is not good, but after the Spirit regenerates him, he can lie and go to heaven-he cannot fall from grace. Before the Spirit re-generates him, if he pays his debts it is not good, but after the Spirit regenerates him, if he beats and cheats and de-frauds, he will go to heaven-he cannot fall from grace. Before the Holy Spirit regenerates him, if he loves his wife it is not good, but after the Spirit regenerates him, he can love anybody's wife, and go to heaven just the same-he cannot fall from grace!

The doctrine of hereditary total depravity puts a prem-ium on and gives license to sin. It takes all incentive out of one's life as a Christian to do right, to live righteously, in moral equity or common decency. If one who believes this theology lives right, it is against his doctrine. If he does good, it is in spite of his doctrine. If he does right, it is not because his doctrine encourages him to do it-it is because he has something in him besides total depravity, and that disproves his doctrine. The good lives some live who theoretically hold to the doctrine, reverses the doctrine, answers it, and testifies to its falsity.

What encouragement, I say, is there in such theology for a life of godliness, sobriety, and righteousness? It must be branded as a hold-over from the Calvinistic theology of medie-val times, which ought to have been left in the abandoned attics of the dark ages-never to have been given warmth or light to hatch in a day of enlightenment. It is a false theology.

(5) The inconsistency of the doctrine. I want to call your attention to the absolute inconsistency of that doctrine with the very principle upon which the Bible is written and addressed to men. The doctrine of the

impossibility of apostasy is entirely incompatible with the whole trend of Bible teaching.

First, the Bible warns us against falling. "Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall"-1 Cor. 10:12. Second, the Bible tells us how to keep from falling. "If ye do these things, ye shall never fall"-2 Peter 1:10.

Third, the Bible tells us what to do when we fall-"but if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world." 2 Jno. 2:1-2; and "if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins"-1 Jno. 1:9.

You who claim to be children of God, yet think it is im-possible to fall from grace and be lost, consider these three things. The Bible warns us against falling; the Bible tells us how to keep from falling; the Bible tells what to do when we fall-yet you say we cannot fall! Why all of that in-struction? Would God warn a man who cannot fall against falling? Would God tell a man who cannot fall, how to keep from it? Would God tell a man who cannot fall what to do when he falls? Someone says: "Well, we can fall but we cannot be lost. We can sin, but cannot be damned." But the text says that "if" we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive our sins. Now, here is a man who is a Christian and he sins. John says, "if" he confesses his sins, God will forgive him. Suppose he does not confess his sins -will God forgive him anyhow? If he will, what is the meaning of the passage? Why confess? Let me ask you a few personal questions.


Do you pray for God to forgive you? Do you confess your sins? Let me ask you, those who believe in the im-possibility of apostasy, do you ever sin? Unless you are a consummate egotist, you will say, yes, I sin. If you say, no, John says you are a liar; so you had better say, yes; for if you say no, you sin when you say it, if it is a sin to lie. Do you sin? Yes. Do you pray? When you pray, do you confess your sins? If you did not pray, and did not confess your sins, would God forgive you anyhow? If not, would you be saved without being forgiven?

The answer to these questions ruins the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy. One must confess his sins to be forgiven; if he does not confess his sins he cannot be for-given. Therefore, such a one will either be saved without forgiveness, or else he will not be saved unless he confesses his sins and receives forgiveness. If that is not true, there is no need to confess or pray. Go on with your sins, and with-out forgiveness, to heaven! But if one who does not confess and pray will be lost-then it is possible for a child of God to fall away and be lost-and the doctrine is "gone with the wind."

If a child of God cannot fall away and be lost, why the epistolary writings, since they are all addressed to Christians telling them how to live? Three-fourths of the New Testa-ment is addressed to Christians teaching them how to live to be saved, and exhorting them to live that way, but they will all be saved whether they live that way or not!

(6) The meaning of "cannot sin."

Let us read it: "Whosoever is born of God doth not com-mit sin; for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God."

Commenting on this verse, Baptist preachers frequently say that if one is born of God he does not commit adultery, does not murder and lie. But the text does not merely say "does not sin," it says cannot sin. The issue is can, not does.

There is the word "cannot," and it says the child of God cannot sin. What does it mean? Does it mean that it is im-possible for a child of God to sin? I say, no; a child of God can lie; a child of God can commit adultery; a child of God can do murder; a child of God can steal; and a child of God can call his brother a fool. But Jesus said one who calls his brother a fool is in danger of hell fire. Can one be in the danger of hell fire, if he cannot go to hell? He cannot go to hell, but if he calls his brother a fool he is in danger of hell fire! Then, I suppose, hell comes to him if he cannot go to it! Can a child of God lie? Yes. But the Bible says all liars-all of them-are "without" the gate of heaven and will be "cast into the lake of fire"-Rev. 22:8-27. Can a child of God commit adultery? Well-Paul was addressing some of them when he said "they that do such tilings shall not inherit the kingdom of God."-Gal. 5:20. Can a child of God commit murder? Well, David did-and one who does such and never repents remains a murderer, and "shall not enter the kingdom of God". But if the preacher replies that a child of God can sin, but his sins do not damn his soul, then he is as much obligated to explain Jno. 3:9 as anybody else. It would be as much his responsibility as mine-the dif-ference is that I can tell you what it means, and he cannot, in the light of his doctrine.

The term "cannot sin" does not mean that it is impossible to sin. What is the use of the word "cannot"? A mother tells her child it "cannot" do a certain thing. Why does she tell the child it cannot do it? Because she knows it can. It would be silly for her to be telling the child that it cannot do a thing she knows it cannot do. She tells the child it cannot do a thing because she knows it can-and she says it cannot, because it can! Now that is exactly right, and it is the use the Bible makes of the word "cannot." For instance, in 2 Peter 2:10, the apostle speaks of some in a certain con-dition who had "forsaken the right way" (they were once in it), after they had once "escaped the pollution of the world," but had turned back, and with "eyes full of adultery," Peter says of them, they "cannot cease sinning." Do you think it is impossible for a man who is sinning to quit? The text says these backsliders "cannot cease sinning" - "cannot" cease sinning. Does "cannot" mean impossible? Then some of God's children cannot sin-while some other children of God cannot quit sinning! If one of these cannots means impossible, so must the other.

Well, take another example-in Genesis 44, when Jos-eph was dealing with his brothers in Egypt, he inquired about Benjamin, and demanded that they bring the lad. His brothers said, "the lad cannot come." Was it impossible for the lad to go? Or, no; not at all. Later, he did go.

Take another example. When the children of Israel crossed the Red Sea, and were in the wilderness, Moses went up into the mountain to receive the Ten Commandments. You will remember that God sent Moses back down the slopes of Sinai to say to Israel, "You cannot come to the mountain." But they could. They had only to walk over to it. If it had been impossible for Israel to come to the mountain, do you think God would have sent Moses all the way down the craggy, shaggy slopes of Sinai to tell the people that they could not do a thing which was actually impossible for them to do? God sent Moses down the moun-tain to tell the people that they could not come to the mount because God knew they could, and he told them they could not because they could!

All right-what about Jno. 3:9? The word "cannot" does not mean an impossibility, it is rather a prohibition, a restraint. It is used in a moral sense-it is a moral use of the word. Compare the passages:

1. "The lad cannot come lest his father die"-he could not come "lest"-without a certain consequence resulting.

2. "Ye cannot come to the mountain, for God has charged you"-they could not come to the mountain "for"-without the penalty or the consequences resulting, of ignoring the prohibition.


3. So one born of God cannot sin, "for his seed remaineth in him"-without the consequences of forfeiting the moral qualities of the Father begotten in him.

It has been said that this verse means one cannot sin as long as the seed, the word of God, is in his heart. But "seed" in this passage is not the word of God. The passage does not say "the seed," it says "his" seed. Seed here refers to the moral qualities of the Father that have been begotten in us. The child of God, one who has obeyed the gospel, is "partaker of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4), and has within him the moral qualities of the divine birth-the qualities of the Father begotten in him, a partaker of the divine nature. Sin forfeits these qualities, and destroys the divine nature. He cannot sin and retain them.

So to say that a child of God can commit sin, does not clash with the use of the word "cannot" in Jno. 3:9 any more than to say that one can quit sinning contradicts "cannot cease sin," in 2 Peter 2:10. In this passage the apostle speaks of some children of God who had "gone astray," had become "cursed children," who "cannot cease sin." So if cannot means impossible, we have one class of God's children who cannot sin, and another class of God's children who cannot quit sinning! If a child of God can lie, steal, do murder, and commit adultery, he can sin. But he cannot do such things and retain his relation to God. If you say a child of God does not sin when he does such things-then it means that to an alien, one who is not a child of God, a thing is sin, but to a child of God the same thing is not sin. It would mean that when the Holy Spirit regenerates a man, when he becomes a child of God, is "born again," he can do precisely the same thing that used to be sin, but to one thus regenerated the same sin is not sin. That is what it means-and the absurdity of it all must surely see. It is absurd.

(7) The spiritual consequences of sin.

First, I read Romans 8:13: "For if ye walk after the flesh ye shall die." Paul is talking to the "brethren," warning them


against walking after the flesh, and against the death that would inevitably follow. Well, one must be alive to die. So the passage refers to persons who have life. What kind of life? The kind of life one would lose by walking after the flesh. "If ye walk after the flesh you shall die." The death mentioned is not physical death, because all will die physically anyhow. So wemust bealiveto die, and thedeath is not physical death, so the life mentioned is not physical life. Then the life is spiritual life, and the death is therefore spiritual death. It cannot therefore refer to the sinner because the sinner is already spiritually dead; he has no spiritual life to lose. So, onemust bealiveto die; thedeath cannot bephysical death, because one will die that way anyhow; the death is spiritual death; so one who has spiritual life, who walks after the flesh will die-spiritually. Rom. 8:13 is final: "If yewalkafter theflesh yeshall die"-"if yemortifythe deeds of the body ye shall live." Contrast them: "Ye shall die"-"ye shall live," both conditional. It destroys the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy.

Second, in Jas. 5:20, the apostle says to convert an err-ing brother is to "save a soul from death." If the brother was not "saved from death," it leaves that "brother," a man once saved, in a lost condition-death. It is up to the man who teaches this doctrine to get him alive again. That is where the Bible puts the man who apostatizes-death.

Third, in Gal. 5:20, writing to "brethren" Paul said of those who are guilty of such things as drunkenness, adultery, lying, and stealing, "shall not inherit the kingdom of God." If they cannot inherit the kingdom of God, how are they goingtobe saved?

It is argued by some preachers that God would not let a child of his die while he is drunk. Then we have a pre-scription for eternal life, and it fits the times. Get drunk and stay drunk, and live forever! God's child cannot die drunk! Jesus Christ did not know that for he said that those who were in covenant relation with God could "die in your sins," and "whither I go ye cannot come." A child of God can sin, a child of God can die in sin, and if he dies in sin he cannot go where Jesus went. Where does he go?

Fourth, in Heb. 10:39, the record tells us that "we are not of them that draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." And Jesus, in Luke 8:13, mentions those who "for awhile believe." If one is saved by faith-that is, when he believes-what happens to him when he loses his faith, or quits believing? Jesus said they believed "for awhile." Now, you cannot say they never did believe, because Jesus said they did. If they were saved by faith, since Jesus said they believed only for awhile-it means they quit believing. Since one is saved by faith but may believe only for awhile, then such a one is saved only for awhile. If saved by faith, when faith is lost, salvation is lost, is it not? If not, then some people are saved without faith. One could not have faith who had quit believing, and if he is still saved, then he is saved without faith. So what becomes of the doc-trine of justification by faith? That would be justification without faith. You will have to surrender either the doctrine of impossibility of apostasy or the doctrine of justification by faith.

Now, with all the warnings in the Bible-let me ask you: Was there ever a constitution of laws, or of government, that warned and threatened and penalized its citizens against the danger or the possibility of a thing, when no such clanger or possibility existed? If there is no danger or possibility of apostasy, how do you account for the fact that in God's con-stitution, the New Testament, he warns, he threatens, and he penalizes-all against the possibility of doing a thing that it is impossible to do? It makes folly out of the divine constitution, just as it would make nonsense of the constitution of any government of earth that should do a thing of that sort.




I now pass to a major consideration related to this dis-cussion.

(1) The divine side and the human side of salvation. Much has been made of the security of believers. But there are two sides to the question of the believer's security-God's side and man's side. Draw a line down the center of the board. Put God on the one side of the line and man on the other side of the line. So far as God's side is concerned, the believer is absolutely secure. God is able to keep his word. But God's guarantee depends on man's conduct. When the execution of God's will depends solely on himself, it invariably comes to pass. But when the execution of God's will depends

There are many proof-texts that set forth God's side of the security of the believer-God's promises, his faithfulness to his promises, his power-but that does not destroy the conditionality on man's side, or on man's part, in the question at all. God's promises are conditional. Two parties go into the making of a covenant, God and man. The passages al-ways introduced to teach the absolute security of believers simply represent God's side, and are misapplied on the ques-tion of the impossibility of apostasy.

For instance, God granted to Paul 276 lives on the ship in the sea, 'going to Rome. "For lo! God hath given thee all them that sail with thee"-Acts 27:25. There were 276 persons on the ship. God guaranteed Paul all the lives on the ship. Yet under God's guarantee, Paul said to them, "Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved"- verse 31.

There was a condition involved in this promise of physical salvation, you see. So it is when God promises to the believer spiritual salvation, there is a condition on the believer's side. God is able to keep his guarantee, and he will do it, but man has a condition to keep on his end of the deal-God's guarantee depends on what man is going to do about it.

Take a ferryman, for instance. He is ferrying his pas-sengers across the river. The wind is high, and the boat begins to toss. The ferryman could tell the passengers his experience and ability to take them safely over, and land them on the other side. But that would not necessarily keep some fellow from playing the fool, and jumping off the ferryboat. In order for the guarantee of the ferryman to be worth anything, the passenger must meet the condition-stay on the boat. These are simple illustrations of the truth under discussion.

(2) The believer and condemnation.

I read in John 3:36 where the believer "shall not come into condemnation." We are told that this means a saved believer must stay saved-he shall not come into condem-nation. But suppose he ceases to be a believer? If when it says the believer "shall not come into condemnation," it means that the believer cannot become an unbeliever, and can never be lost; then when John says the unbeliever "shall not see life," that would mean it is impossible for an unbeliever to become a believer and be saved. Of the unbeliever it says, "shall not see life." The "shall not" of the unbeliever is just as definite as the "shall not" of the believer. If the first statement is unconditional, so is the second. In that case there could be no more chance for an unbeliever ever to be saved than for a believer to be lost, because the "shall not see life," is just


as positive as the "shall not come into condemnation." So why preach to an unbeliever? If a believer remains un-conditionally saved because it says "he shall not come into condemnation," then the unbeliever must remain uncon-ditionally unsaved because it says "he shall not see life." If the believer remains saved because his state cannot be changed by any act of his own, then the unbeliever remains unsaved, because his state cannot be changed by any act of his own. If that be true there is no use to preach. We had as well close the meeting-and go home. That would be the exact con-sequence of the doctrine.

It all goes to show that God's promises are conditional. God's side and man's side. Friends, we can stack the pas-sages up as high as the dome of this hall, that tell us of God's promises, and of the security of the believer, but it is not necessary. I accept them all, and if you can bring any more I will accept them, too. But the whole theory is a misappli-cation of the passages. The mistake is made in taking pas-sages that refer to God's side, and applying them to man's side. This is the mistake every time. Now, those passages that refer to the security of the believer apply to God's side of the matter; but those passages that refer to the conditions, apply to man's side of the matter. We must look to both sides in order to get the truth as it pertains both to salvation from past sins, and to final salvation in heaven. We must respect the right application of scripture.

(3) The believer and eternal life. I read in Rom. 6:22, of the fruits of righteousness being borne in the present life, and "in the end eternal life." In Matt. 19:29 and Mark 10:30, Jesus said that the disciples who had left all and followed him would receive "in the world to come, eternal life;" and 1 Tim. 6:12 Paul exhorts Timothy to "lay hold on eternal life." Paul addressed Titus "in hope of eternal life" in Tit. 1:2. And in Gal. 6:8, the law of sowing

and reaping is applied: "He that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh, reap corruption; but he that soweth to the spirit

shall of the spirit reap everlasting life." Eternal life is the reaping and comes after the sowing.

Jno. 5:24 is made to mean that the believer has ever-lasting life, he cannot lose it; if it could be lost, it would not be everlasting. Well-he does have everlasting life, but in what sense? Paul said, "in hope of everlasting life"-he did not have it in possession, he had it in hope. He further said that for which we hope we do not possess "but patiently wait for"-Rom. 8:24-but he said "in hope of eternal life"- therefore, he did not possess it but was waiting for it. All the passages that promise eternal life to believers simply state who shall receive it, not when it is received.

Take the passage on "reaping"-Gal. 6:8-if one receives eternal life here in this world, the reaping comes before the sowing. The law of sowing and reaping is the basis of the apostle's illustration-sow first, then reap. We are sowing to the spirit here; we reap eternal life hereafter. But if we have eternal life now, then the reaping comes before the sowing, the law of sowing and reaping is reversed, and Paul's illustra-tion does not illustrate.

One preacher said to me in debate: "I trust God; I be-lieve God-you do not trust God; He says the believer has eternal life; I believe it; I have it and cannot lose it; I trust God." He thought I did not trust God because I do not accept his doctrine of the believer's unconditional security. Well, let us see. I replied: You want some work done; you send for a man to do your work, and you pay him in advance; would the man thereafter trust you, or would you be trusting the man? If God gives us eternal life now, in actual posses-sion, and it cannot be forfeited, then it looks to me like God is trusting man, instead of man trusting God. The argument is thrown into reverse gear. If God has given the believer eternal life in actual possession now, and he cannot forfeit or lose it, he has "paid him in advance," and he no longer trusts God-God is trusting him!


There is a difference inhavinga thinginpromise, in privilege, in hope, on one hand, and having in actual pos-session, on the other. A minor has his estate in right but he has it as a minor, as an heir apparent but not in actual pos-session; and in hope he sees the day when he will come into possession of it, when the conditions are fulfilled.

In the Old Testament, Isaiah said, "the people that walk-ed in darkness have seen a great light," and "upon them hath the light shined"-Isa. 9:2. The prophet used the past tense in reference to an event seven hundred years in the future. Again, in Isaiah 6:9: "Unto us a child is given, a son is born" -he used the present tense of the same future event, seven centuries before it became a fact. So in promise and in prophecy present tense is frequently used in reference to future possession and fulfillment.

(4) The believer and God's love and grace.

It is argued that the love of God is eternal and that his grace cannot fail. But God's love is also universal, he loves the whole world (Jno. 3:16), and his grace has appeared unto all men (Tit. 2:11). Does the doctrine of universalism follow? God's grace does not fail, but man may fail. "Looking dili-gently lest any man fail of the grace of God"-Heb. 12:15. God's love is eternal, but Jude says, "keep yourselves in the love of God"-Jude 21-and none of the things Paul mentions in Rom. 8:35-39 can separate one from God's love, but man can separate himself. "Behold the Lord's hand is not shorten-ed that he cannot save; neither is his ear heavy that he cannot hear; but your sins have separated between you and your God, and your iniquities have hid his face so that he will not hear"-Isa. 59:1-2.

Paul declares in Rom. 8:29 that "all things work together for good to them that love God," but we are also told in Jude 21, and Rev. 2:4, that those who love God can cease to love him, just as one who believes "for awhile"-Lk. 8:13-can cease to believe.

(5) The believer and election.

It is insisted that the saved believer is an "elect" person and that since Christ died for the elect, the believer's election cannot be cancelled. But Christ died for all-he "tasted death for every man" (Heb. 2:9)-are all elect? Furthermore, in Rom. 14:15 Paul plainly states that one for whom Christ died -a brother, an elect one-can be destroyed and perish. The election taught in the Bible is conditional, just as all other promises of God relating to man's salvation. God has not elected certain individuals but certain characters to be saved. All men have the privilege of election. But as election is conditional before one obtains salvation, it is also conditional after salvation is received. That is exactly why Peter said, "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure"-2 Pet. 1:10.

There are many passages, scores of them, that teach the security of the believer, so far as God's side is concerned. We accept them all-and if there are any more that anybody can think of or find in the word of God, we accept them, too, in advance. But there are likewise other scores of passages which teach that negligence, sin, unbelief and disobedience will in-variably lead away from God and shipwreck the faith -all of that to the last chapter of the New Testament, even to "blotting" one's name "out of the book of life." A name could not be blotted out of the book of life if it had never been in the book of life. And how could one's name get into the book of life if he was not once saved? Could an unsaved man's name get into the book of life? But the New Testament says that some names will be blotted out of the book of life if they fail to overcome"-Rev. 3:5. Here is a name blotted out of the book of life-but the one whose name it is will go to heaven, anyway, just the same, with his name blotted out of the book of life! That is "some" doctrine!

Friends, do such passages as these mean nothing? Do they contradict other passages in God's word on the security of the believer? No. The mistake is made in the application


of these passages which refer to God's side of salvation, but overlooking entirely man's part in salvation.



Since the type and antitype argument, though it is based on Old Testament example, is used by the apostles in the epistles to the churches, it comes within the proposition as a New Testament argument, that one saved by the blood of Christ mayfall awayand be lost.

Introducing this argument, I refer to the verses which were read as a text tonight: "I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.... Now these things happened unto them for examples: and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the end of the ages are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."

(1) The type in Old Testament history.

Here we have type and antitype. The redemption of Israel from Egypt is a type of our redemption, or salvation, from sin. Egypt is a type of the world. Pharaoh is a type of Satan. The bondage of Egypt is a type of the oppression of sin. Moses is a type of Christ. The miracles of Moses are a type of the wonders Jesus wrought. Faith in Moses, their leader, is a type of faith in Christ, our saviour. Turning from Egypt is a type of repentance, the abandonment of sin. The passage through the sea is a type of baptism. They were "under" the cloud and "through" the sea. The walls of water stood congealed on each side, a passage between. They were "under" and "through"-baptism is an immersion and an emersion, a burial and a resurrection.

Here is baptism in type, both in action and design. Here is the picture. When Israel stood on the brink of the sea, they faced a choice. That choice was Moses or Pharaoh, which? If they had refused to pass through the sea, their choice would have been Pharaoh. By the act of refusing to go through the sea, they would have said, we choose Pharaoh; we stay in Pharaoh's territory, under Pharaoh's dominion and in Pharaoh's power. But when they went through the sea, their choice was Moses-by their action, they said, We choose Moses, we renounce Pharaoh; we abandon Pharaoh's territory, we throw off his sovereignty-we choose Moses.

So it is when one stands on the threshold of the divine command to be baptized. We face a choice. That choice is Christ or Satan-which? By a refusal to be baptized one says, I choose Satan; I stay in Satan's territory, under Satan's sovereignty, in Satan's power. But when one takes Jesus Christ at his wordtodowhat he says, it means tochoose Christ, to renounce Satan, to abandon Satan's territory, to choose Christ.

So goes the type of baptism. It was after they crossed the sea that the record says "thus the Lord saved Israel that day." He did not save them before they crossed the sea. Anybody who thinks that Israel was saved from Egypt be-fore they crossed the Red Sea, needs a lesson in geography as well as in the Bible. The Red Sea was the boundary line between Egypt and the wilderness. They were not out of Egypt until they crossed the sea.

The journey through the wilderness is a type of our pil-grimage in the church. Canaan is a type of heaven. But they fell, they did not enter Canaan, with them God was not pleased-they fell. Hear Paul in Heb. 4:1: "Let us therefore fear lest a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it." Fear what? If a child of God cannot fall and be lost, what is there to fear in


this type? If there are those here tonight who believe in the im-possibility of apostasy, stand with me at Kadesh-barnea. Look back over that dismal desert and weary wilderness. See a million graves, and on every grave the epitaph, "they fell." They who? They who left Egypt; they who crossed the sea; they who had the passover blood on them (about which the preachers talk so much); they whom God said he saved "that day." But they "fell," they fell, they FELL! We hear the preachers say that the reason a child of God can-not fall is because he is under the power of the blood. I have seen them jump two feet in the air, smite their hands, pop their heels, and shout: "Under the power of the blood, and cannot fall." Well, ask him the question: Were those Hebrews not also under the power of the blood-the pass-over blood? That is what the preachers say-under the power of the passover blood, and Moses said God had saved them. But they fell. They did not enter Canaan-"they did not enter in." But we are told it was because of "unbelief"-they did not really believe. Well let us see. Turn to Psalms 106. It is a chapter on Israel's deliverance from Egypt In verse 12 David tells us that Israel believed. Then in verse 24, he says they believed not. Between the two verses it describes how they made a molten calf, rebelled against Moses, lusted and envied, forgot God their saviour-and "believed not." So they believed and they believed not. The same ones who once believed, afterward believed not. The believers turned into unbelievers, and did not enter Canaan.


It is persisted however that the Israelites did not know, because it is said in Heb. 3:10, "they have not known my ways." But in Heb. 11:29, it plainly says "by faith they passed through the Red sea, as by dry land." But they later "believed not?' So in Heb. 3:10 it says "they do always err" and did not "know his way"-they erred from knowledge, lost their faith, and God "swore" that they should not enter his rest-Canaan. This is God's oath that Baptist doctrine is not true.

(2) The antitype in New Testament application.

Now, Paul says the same thing may happen to us. "Let us therefore fear lest," and "give diligence that no man fall after the same example of unbelief." Yet we are told that there is no danger, no possibility of apostasy. Then why all of the warnings?" Ponder the following statements.

1. They believed on Moses, their leader.

2. They turned from Egypt, the land of bondage.

3. They passed through the sea, their baptism into Moses.

4. They ate "spiritual food, and drank spiritual drink"- the manna and the smitten rock.

5. They were overthrown in the wilderness-because of apostasy.

6. They missed Canaan-the result of disobedience. The scenes in the wilderness from the Red Sea to Kadesh-barnea reverse every claim, and nullify every argument on the im-possibility of apostasy. Here are a million arguments in one against the contention that it is impossible for a saved child of God to so sin as to be lost.

Here is Paul's application of the type in 1 Cor. 10 and Hebrews the third and fourth chapters:


1. It was written for us.

2. We should not do as they did.

3. We may fall short of our promise.

4. We are exhorted not to fall after the same example.

5. We are warned against the same unbelief.

6. We should therefore fear.

It represents Paul's admonition to the Corinthian Church and his exhortation to the Hebrew Christians, and his argu-ment to both, on the possibility of apostasy.

(3) Israel's relation to God.

The argument maybe continued in the comparison of Israel's relation to God in the Old Testament and the rela-tion of the church to Christ in the New Testament.

1. Israel was called God's wife. "If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's wife, shall he return to her again? But thou hast played the harlot . . . yet return again to me, saith the Lord."-Jer. 3:1.

2. Israel was called God's vine. "Now will I sing to my well-beloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard . . . for the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel." -Isa. 5:1-7.

3. Israel was called God's people. "I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry."-Ex. 3:7.

4. Israel was called God's children. "Ye are the children of the Lord your God."-Deut. 14:1.

5. Israel was called God's holiness. "Israel was holiness unto the Lord, and the firstfruits of his increase"-Jer. 2:3.

After thus seeing the relation that Israel sustained to God as a people, let us now notice what Israel did, and the result.


1. Israel was charged with forgetting God. "Ye have forgotten me, days without number"-Jer. 2:32.

2. Israel became abominable to God. "I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness . . . but they went to Baal-peor, and separated themselves unto shame; and their abominations were according as they loved"-Hos. 9:10. And verse 9 says, "They have deeply corrupted themselves . . . therefore he will remember their iniquity, he will visit their sins."

3. Israel played harlot and God divorced her because of her adultery. "Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? She is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot . . . and I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce"-Jer. 3:6-8.

Now Israel as a nation did forget God; but David said that the nation that forgets God is turned into hell-Psa. 9:17. And Israel became abominable unto God; but the abominable are cast into hell also-Rev. 21:8. But Israel committed adultery, played the harlot, separated herself from God, and God divorced and rejected her.

Paul says that these things were written for "our ad-monition" who live now in "the end of the ages"-the gospel age-1 Cor. 10. And he exhorts us to give diligence that we do not fall after the same example-Heb. 4. And to the Roman Christians Paul said that if God spared not Israel in her relations with him then-"neitJier will he spare thee."

Friends, if these warnings, admonitions, exhortations and examples mean anything at all, I cannot see how the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy can possibly be true.


Let me now refer you to a group of New Testament pas-sages that clearly show that men would, could and did apostatize.


(1) Precept-the direct teaching.

In the words of an Old Testament prophet, we shall now show "precept upon precept."

First: On departing from the faith-1 Tim. 4:1.

Paul declares that "the spirit" very "expressly" says that men in this gospel age would "give heed to seducing spirits" and "depart from the faith"-abandon the truth. In 1 Tim.

1:19 he declared that men in the church would thrust both

faith and a good conscience away and shipwreck the faith. A man cannot thrust away a faith that he never had, nor a good conscience that he never possessed, nor shipwreck a faith that never existed. A conscience that had never been pure could not be corrupted; a faith never held could not be cast away, and faith that had never been established in the heart could not be shipwrecked. Of these men Paul said that he "delivered them unto Satan." Perhaps, that was Paul's way of saying that they went to heaven! Other passages in Paul's letters to Timothy point out how various ones were "led astray from the faith" and "erred from the faith"-1 Tim. 6:10, 21- "denied" the faith, "cast off" the faith, "went after Satan" and received "damnation"-1 Tim. 5:8, 12, 15. Then in the second epistle to Timothy, chapter 2, verse 18, he mentions the faith "overthrown." And let it be remarked here that the word faith in all of these passages is the word "pistis" which is found in Rom. 5:1, "justified by faith," and in 2 Tim. 4:7, "I have kept the faith," and in all the three hundred verses that refer to the faith that saves, showing that it is the faith that saved them which they had denied, shipwrecked, cast off, overthrown, thrust away, and from which they had de-parted, erred, strayed, fallen away, and as a result had been turned over to Satan and damned.

Second: On falling from grace-Gal. 5:4.

To the Judaizing Galatians Paul said, "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." Was Paul warning these


Galatians against an impossibility? Could one have fallen from grace who was never in it? Do you say we cannot fall from grace? Well, Paul says they did-"ye are fallen from grace." If Paul was not declaring what had occurred, he was definitely showing them what could occur; if it does not mean they actually had, it certainly does mean that they positively could.

In connection with Gal. 5:4, notice in comparison some other passages on grace. In Gal 1:6 Paul states that God had "called" these Galatians "into the grace of Christ." But he declared that they had "removed" from him, and in chapter 5 charged that they had "fallen from grace"- the grace into which they had been called.

It appears that Paul was constrained to speak much of grace and the danger of falling from it. It was Paul and Barnabas who converted the Gentiles in Antioch of Pisidia and "persuaded them to continue in the grace of God"-Acts

13:43. What would have been the result if they had not "continued"?

Again, to Timothy Paul said, "be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus"-2 Tim. 2:1. This indicates that there are degrees in the grace wherein the child of God dwells, for if one is strong in grace another may be weak, and the one exhorted to be strong is in danger of getting weak; and if he can get weak, he can grow weaker, and finally become so weak as to fail of grace entirely. Hence, the command of Paul to the Hebrews to "look diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God." The possibility of doing so either exists or these passages add up to nothing.

As a climax of all of Paul's solemn exhortations to stand in grace, and his fearful warnings against falling from grace, read carefully verses 19 to 29 of Hebrews 10. In verse 19, he calls them "brethren" which identifies the persons addressed. In verse 22 he refers to "us" and "our" in con-nection with his reference to their having been "washed


with pure water" in their baptism. In verse 25 he warns of the danger of "forsaking the assembling of ourselves to-gether." In verse 25 he mentions sins committed "after that we have received the knowledge of the truth." In verse 29 he gravely lists the sins of having "trodden under foot the Son of God," and of counting "the blood of the covenant" which had "sanctified" them "an unholy thing," and of doing "despite to the Spirit of grace," and reminds them that the punishment for such sins in the gospel age is "sorer" than the death punishment of the law of Moses.

So here we have the picture of apostasy, as follows:

1. They had entered the new and living way by the blood of Jesus.

2. Their hearts had been cleansed from an evil conscience in baptism.

3. They were exhorted to love and good works and ad-monished not to forsake the assembly.

4. They could turn from the sacrifice for sin.

5. They could trod under foot the Son of God.

6. They could count the blood of the covenant unholy.

7. They could do despite to the Spirit of grace.

8. Their punishment would be "sorer than death."

Now what is that "punishment" which would be in-flicted upon these "brethren" who had been "sanctified" by the blood of Jesus which is "sorer than death"? Physical death was the punishment under the law of Moses, but to apostate members of the body of Christ, God's judgment is called a punishment sorer than death. Is that Paul's way of telling these Hebrews that they could not fall from grace and be lost?


Third: On the last state of the apostate-2 Pet. 2:18-25. The second chapter of second Peter is a vivid description of the many causes of apostasy and of its direful consequences. The causes of apostasy,were_first described:

1. There were many false prophets and false teachers bringing damnable heresies.

2. Many would follow their pernicious ways.

3. With feigned words these false teachers would make

merchandise of them-the members of the church. The warnings against apostasy are next delivered:

1. God spared not the angels when they sinned.

2. He spared not the old world but brought the flood upon it.

3. The condition is repeated in those who "have forsaken the right way" and have "gone astray" and have become "cursed children" with "eyes full of adultery" who "cannot cease from sin."

4. By these "lusts of the flesh" even "those that were clean escaped from them who live in error" were again "allured" to return to these lusts.

Their final apostasy resulting is described as follows:

1. They had escaped pollution through the knowledge of God.

2. They had become again entangled.

3. Their last state was worse than the first.

4. It had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it to turn from it.

5. Their apostasy was compared to the proverb of the dog returning to his vomit and the hog wallowing in the mire.

Now, it cannot be said that these people "never had it" for Peter said they had "escaped pollution" and that "through


the knowledge of God." He further said that they had be-come "again entangled" and that their "last state" was for the reasons named "worse than the first." Moreover they had "known the way of righteousness" but had "turned from the holy commandment," and their return to the world was a fulfillment of the dog and the hog proverb. It will not do any good to say that the hog was just a hog and never was anything but a hog, for the point is that he was a "washed" hog, but the washed hog went back to his old mire hole and became a mired hog again. So with the man-he became a saved man, but forsakes "the way of righteousness," and he becomes a sinning man again. What will happen to him? His "last state" is "worse" than if he had not been converted at all. Is that Peter's way of saying a child of God cannot fall away and be lost?

Fourth: on knowing and forgetting God-Jno. 17:3.

Jesus said, "This is life eternal, that they might know

thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." But God said through Jeremiah: "My people have forgotten me days without number" (Jer. 2:32); and David said: "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the na-tions that forget God" (Psa. 9:17). Israel was a nation; God said Israel had forgotten him; David said the nation that did sowouldbe turnedintohell.

Now apply these passages to the individual. Can one forget God if he did not know God? If so, when he forgets God does he still know him? John the apostle says, "Here-by we do know that we know him, if we keep his command-ments, and "he that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 Jno. 2:3-4) The proof that one knows God is to keep his com-mandments-does he still know God if he does not keep his commandments? John says one is a liar who says that he knows God but does not keep his commandments. The con-clusions are:

1. To know God is eternal life.

2. One who knows God can forget him.

3. To know God is to keep his commandments.

4. One who says he knows God and does not keep his commandments is a liar.

5. One who forgets God does not still know him.

6. One who has ceased to keep his commandments has ceased to know him.

7. The one who says that is not true is called a liar.

We are about to prove by John, that anybody who teaches the impossibility of apostasy, a Baptist preacher for instance, is a liar, and "the truth is not in him."

To know God and Christ is to have eternal life; but to forget God is to lose it. To find it again one must go back to where he lost it. "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in the Son." (1 Jno. 5:11) The life is eternal, everlasting, but not everlastingly yours- if you lose it. The life that is eternal is "in the Son," there you will find it, and in him you may keep it; and if and when you abandon or depart from it, you may return and find it where you left it. The coin in my hand is an everlasting coin, but not everlastingly mine-I may lose it or spend it, or I may keep it. Jude says: "keep yourselves in the love of God." (Jude 21)

Fifth: On a whole group of passages:

There are scores of passages which teach that negligence, sin, and disobedience, lead away from God, harden the heart and shipwreck the faith. In Acts 11:23, we are exhorted to "with purpose of heart to cleave unto the Lord"; in Heb. 2:1-4, we are exhorted to give "the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip," and receive the recompense of disobedience and transgression, and


further warned that none can escape who "neglect" this sal-vation; in 1 Cor. 10:13, the one who "thinketh he standeth" is told to "take heed lest he fall"; in 1 Cor. 8:11, we are told that a sinning brother can "perish," even one "for whom Christ died"; in 1 Cor. 9:27, Paul said that after he had "preached to others" he could himself "be a castaway"; in Jas. 5:20, we are told that to convert "a brother from the error of his way" is to "save a soul from death"; and in Rev. 22:19, Jesus warned certain ones that God would "take his part out of the book of life." Could one's name be "blotted out" or his "part" taken out of the book of life, if his name and part had never been in the book of life? Do these passages mean nothing?

God said to Moses, "whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book"-Ex. 32:33. Jesus said to the disciples, "rejoice, because your names are written in heaven" -Lk. 10:20. Paul told the Philippians that their names were "in the book of life"-Phil. 4:3. He told the Hebrews that "the general assembly and church of the firstborn" are also "written in heaven"-Heb. 12:23. John told the church at Sardis that God would "not blot out of the book of life" the name of one who "overcometh"-Rev. 3:5; but if any man shouldtake awayfrom his words, Godwouldtake his part "out of the book of life."-Rev. 22:19.

Answer, is it honest to warn and threaten, even to the last chapter of the New Testament, and to the extent of threaten-ing to blot out one's name and take out one's part from the book of life, if there is no such danger?

Sixth: On illustrations and parables.

In the parable of the vine and the branches, Jesus said: "I am the vine, ye are the branches ...if a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." -Jno. 15:1-3.

The points of the parable may be summarized as follows:

1. The same relation exists between Christ and the Chris-tian that exists between the vine and the branch that is in it.

Jesus said, the branch was in the vine-actually in the vine. It illustrates the man actually in Christ, just as the branch is actually in the vine.

1. The branch that does not bear fruit, is cut off. A per-son truly united to Christ, as truly as the branch is united to the vine that produced it, may be afterward cut off, as the fruitless branch is cut off. A branch never united to the vine, could not be cut off. So the branch is in the vine, and repre-sents the man who is in Christ. If the union is a seeming one, the excision would also be a seeming one; and if that is true, Christ said nothing, did nothing and taught nothing, by the illustration-all of which is contrary to the metaphor itself. The branch is in the vine, and the individual is in Christ. But the branch is cut off from the vine, and the individual is cut off from Christ.

2. After the branch is cut off, it is cast forth. It is "cut off" and "cast forth." It no longer has any right to the rela-tion thatitonce had.

3. The branch "cut off" and "cast forth," is then withered." After it is cast forth, it is left to wither-cut off, cast forth, withered. Separated from Christ, a man withers, like a branch separated from the vine.

4. The withered branches are "gathered." After they are cut off, cast forth and withered, they are "gathered." With all the other wicked they are abandoned to sin and satan.

5. Having been gathered, they are "burned." The one cut off from Christ is finally and eternally lost.

Did Christ give this illustration to teach that it is im-possible for a child of God to fall away and be lost? If so, he went at it in reverse. There is not a man on earth who can explain the illustration of the vine and the branches to har-


monize with the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy. If the illustration is only a seeming relationship and does not teach actual relationship cut off and severed finally and for-ever, then Christ did not say anything, did not teach any-thing, and the entire narrative does not represent the doing of anything-nothing said, nothing done, nothing taught by the illustration. If anything is said, anything done, anything taught, by the illustration, it teaches that one in Christ who has ceased to bear fruit is cut off, cast forth, withered, gathered, and burned.

Seventh: On the parable of the talents.

In Matt. 25:14-30 there is recorded the parable of the talents which teaches the same lesson and has the same clear and striking significance.

1. Jesus is the Lord of the servants, whose return to us, and our reckoning to him, is the subject of this parable.

2. The servants are his disciples, his "own," they are "his."

3. The talents are the means of service given to all who belong to him.

4. The conduct of the faithful servants is an example of how we should watch and work, as faithful and wise Christians.

5. The conduct of the slothful servant is an example of the unfaithfulness of the evil servant who sins away his time.

6. The reckoning is the day of judgment. When the mas-ter comes the one who has sinned away his time is cast asunder, and his portion is appointed with unbelievers.

What is the portion of unbelievers? Does that mean any-thing, something or nothing? Why did Jesus speak such a parable? Does it mean that it is impossible for those faithless servants to lose their place, and their reward? What, in particular, does it teach if not children of God, servants of Christ, Christians today, may by unfaithfulness to Christ be


cut off, cast asunder, and have their portion appointed with unbelievers in eternity?

(2) Examples-actual cases of apostasy.

Having set forth the precepts in the direct teaching, and parables, let us look at some examples.

First: Adam, the first man.

The doctrine of the "impossibility" of apostasy is based upon the "apostasy" of the first man. The inconsistency of the theory will be obvious. In 2 Cor. 11:3 the apostle applies the lesson of the apostasy of the first pair to us by expressing the fear that as the serpent beguiled Eve, "so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." Adam was the son of God, as stated in Lk. 3:38. He was made in the image of God, a fact stated in Gen. 1:26. He broke through the restrictions of divine law and transgressed the law of God, as stated in Gen. 3.3 and Tim 2:14. The result of his

transgression was sin and death, as stated in Rom. 5:12. He was separated from God and became a dying, perishing being.

Second: The nation of Israel.

The relation of Israel to God in Old Testament times was a type of the relation of the church to Christ, and Israel's apostasy is a type of the possibility of such on the part of members of the church of Christ. Through Ezekiel (18: 25 and 33:18) God told Israel that when their ways became unequal, and the righteous man turned from his righteousness, the man or the nation would die in his iniquity. He further told the sinning nation that if they should "forsake God" he would also "forsake you"-2 Chron. 15:2-and that the sinful nation would be "cast off forever"-1 Chron. 28:9. All of these words were spoken to Israel, in covenant relation with God, as a warning against the possibility of apostasy, and are used by Paul, in Rom. 11, as a warning to the church in her

relation to Christ.


Third: The case of king Saul.

The record may be read in 1 Sam. 10. Verse 1 of the record states that he was "anointed" of God. Verse 6 tells us that he became "another man," and verse 9 says that he had "another heart"-God's man, therefore-and verse 7 says that God was with him. Verse 10 says that God's spirit was in him, and verse 24 says that he was God's chosen. But after all of that, chapter 15 tells us of his sins of rebellion, stubbornness and disobedience, and chapter 28 tells how he became the "Lord's enemy" (verse 16), and being rejected by the Lord, chapter 31 tells us how he killed himself as an out-cast from Israel and God.

Fourth: The case of Judas Iscariot.

The stock remark is that Judas was a devil from the beginning, but there is no passage that so reads, nor from which such an inference may be drawn. What the passage says is that "one of you is a devil"-Jno. 6:70, which is far from the way it is usually quoted. The writer of Acts says Judas "lost" his estate; by transgression "fell"; and that he went to his "own place." Judas was a disciple-Matt. 10:1; he was an apostle-Matt. 10:2; he was ordained-Matt. 3:14; he was sent-Matt. 10:14; he was given power-Matt. 10:15; he was given to Christ-Jno. 17:12; but he "lost his first estate" and "by transgression fell"-Acts 1:25 and went to his "own place"-and Jesus said that he became the "son of perdition"- all of which means, I suppose, if anybody is simple enough to think it, that Judas went to heaven! What was his "perdition," and where was his "own place"? Peculiar language indeed to describe one's salvation, or heavenly abode. In Jno. 17:12 Jesus said of all whom God had given him, "none of them is lost, but. the son of perdition"-Judas. But that very language shows the others could have been lost-else why talk about it?

Fifth: The case of Ananias and Sapphira.

Here is an example among the members of the early church, soon after its establishment, in the Jerusalem church.


Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit and died- Acts 5. The Bible says that all liars shall have their part in the lake of fire, and the names of all who "loveth and maketh a lie" will have their part taken "out of the book of life"-Rev. 22:19.

Sixth: The case of Simon.

In Acts 8, we find a clear-cut example of apostasy. Simon believed; he turned from sorcery; he was baptized. The text says that "Simon also himself believed," which indicates that he had the same kind of faith and baptism as the others who believed and were baptized. If their faith and baptism were genuine so was Simon's. Therefore, since the inspired Luke positively says that Simon believed-and emphasizing it by saying that he also himself believed-even a Baptist must ad-mit that he was saved, for "being baptized, he continued with Philip." So, he continued for a time; but, he was tempted and sinned, and was told to "repent and pray God" in order to be forgiven. It cannot be argued that he was not a child of God for, as stated, the text plainly says that Simon also be-lieved, and also himself believed, classifying him with all of the others. It cannot be said that he never had it, for the only thing charged against him was "this wickedness" and "the thought" that caused it-the' one thought and the one act mentioned. So it is a clear case of apostasy-a sin of which he had to repent, and for which he had to pray to be forgiven. Now, if Simon had not repented, and had not prayed, as Peter commanded him, would he have been forgiven anyway? And if not forgiven, could he have been saved without forgiveness, an unforgiven saved man? It is impossible to answer these questions in the light of the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy. They simply do not fit the theory.

Seventh: The Nicolaitanes.

In Rev. 2:6 Jesus commended the Ephesians for hating "the deeds of the Nicolaitanes," and said, "which I also hate." Some Bible encyclopaedias, dictionaries and commentators


describe the Nicolaitanes as a licentious party in the early church which taught the "security of believers" to the extent that moral living was not required, only faith in Christ was necessary, and that nothing a believer does can damn his soul. Webster defines the Nicolaitanes as a party which taught faith alone, with release from moral law. Jesus said that he hates such doctrine, which is equivalent to a declara-tion that God hates the Baptist doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy-that sin cannot damn the believer's soul. This ought to make some members of that religious fraternity to begin to think.



We are repeatedly told that there are many passages of scripture which teach that a child of God cannot be lost. Let us now examine some of these asserted proof-texts.

(1) God will not break his covenant-his mercy is sure -Psa. 89:26-34. That is very true, but it is man who breaks the covenant. 1 Chron. 28:9 says, "but if thou forsake him he will cast thee off forever," and Jer. 23:39-40 says that God will "utterly forget" and "cast out" of his presence forever all who forsake him. Passages must not be made to contradict. To make a passage deny another one is not an explanation, it is a contradiction. And a theory which makes one passage con-tradict another is a false theory.

(2) Those fear God shall not depart from him-Jer. 32:40-and God's covenant with them is everlasting.

But an everlasting covenant may be broken. "The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant"-Isa. 24:5. Furthermore, Paul said to Timothy, "The Spirit saith expressly that in the last days men shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils"-1 Tim. 4:1. Again, a false


theory contradicts these passages. When men "depart from God" they no longer "fear" him.

(3) Jesus gives eternal life to his sheep-Jno. 10:28.

The argument is that if the sheep have eternal life, they cannot lose it; and no man can pluck them out of God's hand. But to whom was this promise made? To sheep, not to goats-to those already sheep. He does not give them eter-nal life to make them sheep, but after they are sheep. How long after? Read the passage:

1. The sheep hear the shepherd's voice.

2. They "follow" when they hear.

3. He gives them eternal life.

Now, when does he give them eternal life? After they have followed him. The point is this: The sheep hear his voice; they follow him; he gives them eternal life, after they have followed. How long do they follow before they get eternal life, so they shall not perish? Turn to the other pas-sage-Matt. 19:27-29: "Ye who have followed me . . . shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life." Re-cording the same conversation Mark says "in the world to come, eternal life"-Mk. 10:30. Eternal life comes after the following-in the world to come. How long do they fol-low? As long as they live. If they quit following, they come short of the reward.

But we are told, if the devil can get one of God's child-ren, he can get two, and if the devil can get two of God's children, he can get two plus two of God's children, four; then he can get four plus four, then he can get eight plus eight, and sixteen plus sixteen, and the next thing you know the devil will have all of God's children-and that gives the devil more power than God. All right, turn it around the other way, reverse it. If Christ can get one of the devil's children, he can get two, and if two, then two plus two, or


four plus four, or four times four, and sixteen plus sixteen or sixteen times sixteen-so if he has the power to do it, why does he not do it? See? It works both ways, and is nothing but silly sophistry. Yet that is one of their main arguments. They think it makes the devil more powerful than God-to get God's children, and on the principle that the devil can get one of God's children the devil can get all of God's children. Well, on the same principle, if Christ can get one of the devil's children, Christ can get all of the devil's children, so if he does not do it, he is not a good Christ. The truth is that the devil cannot get a single child of God without the consent of that child of God; and God does not take a single one of the devil's children without that sinner's consent. It involves the consent of the person in ei-ther case, hence resolves itself into the simple question of the volition of man in every case.

(4) No man can separate us from the love of God-Rom. 8:35-39.

That is right-but we may separate ourselves from the love of God. Jude says, "But ye, beloved, building up your-selves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God"-Jude 20-21. It is true that God's love is eternal, but God loves the whole world- Jno. 3:16-does that prove universalism?

(5) God's grace cannot fail-Eph. 1:5-7; and he keeps those who are committed to him.-2 Tim. 1:12.

True, but man can fail and does fail. "Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God"-Heb. 12:15. Again, "that ye receive not the grace of God in vain"-2 Cor. 6:1. And then; the final word on it-Gal. 5:4-"Ye are fallen from grace."

(6) But faith overcomes the world-1 Jno. 5:4.

Yes, it does; if we keep it, but we may lost it. "But if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them that draw back unto perdition; but of them that have faith unto the saving of the soul"-Heb. 10:38-39. Also in Luke 8:13 Jesus represented some, in the parable of the sower, who believed, but only "for awhile be-lieved"-they believe and then quit believing. All classes in this parable, except the "wayside" hearer, produced plants, but some were "withered" and were "choked"-they believed only "for awhile." The children of Israel believed for awhile. "And the people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord, and his servant Moses"-Ex. 14:31. But Paul says that "because of unbelief they were broken off" and exhorts us to "be not high-minded but fear," and to "take heed lest he also not spare thee." It proves the possibility of losing faith, hence failing to overcome, and of final apostasy.

(7) Children of God cannot sin in the spirit-Jno. 1:11-13; Jno. 3:6; 1 Jno. 5:1.

But these verses, and verses like them, do not teach the impossibility of sinning in the spirit. All plans and pur-poses to sin originate in the heart. Jesus said, "For out of the heart"-from within man-"proceed evil thoughts, mur-ders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: these are the things which defile man"-Matt. 15:19-20. Are such things sinful? If so, since they originate in and proceed from the heart, it is the spirit sinning through the acts of the body. James said, "Do you think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?"-Jas.

4:5. Is it a sin to lust to envy? If so, the spirit sins when it does so, and James quoted a certain scripture that the spirit in us does such things. For instance, Matt. 5:28, adultery in the heart, and 1 Jno. 3:15, hate; but no bodily action.

In Heb. 12:5-8, the apostle declares that God "loves whom he chastens," and that he "scourges every son whom he re-ceiveth." He also solemnly says, "if ye be without chastise-ment, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons." Chastisement is punishment; but punishment is


for the one that does wrong. Now, if the spirit does not sin, then the spirit cannot be chastened. But Paul says the one which receives no chastening is not a son. Therefore, the doctrine that the spirit does not sin places the stigma mentioned by Paul in verse 8 on every Baptist. Their people will repudiate their own doctrine on this point.

(8) Christ confirms the saints and they cannot fall-1 Cor. 1:8; 2 Cor. 1:21.

All that is true, but David says "the Lord preserveth the faithful"-Psa. 31:23-and "all his saints" who "love the Lord." And Paul says, "Behold the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but to-ward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: other-wise thou also shalt be cut off"-Rom. 11:22. Peter says, "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things ye shall never fall"-2 Pet. 1:10. And Luke mentioned the work of "confirmation" done by Paul and Barnabas: "Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith"-Acts 14:22. The "confirmation of the saints" in this instance depended on the command to "continue in the faith." The confirmation of saints is a conditional thing. And so far as the "sealing" is concerned, the process given by Paul in Eph. 1:13 is simply that of hearing the word of truth, trusting God, believing the gospel of salvation, and being sealed by the Holy Spirit. When the state places the seal on a warranty deed it simply fixes the authority of the government to the transaction and makes it legal. In the matter of salvation the seal of the Holy Spirit is on the divine transaction-the authority of God is on it through the "seal," and it is "sealed with the Holy Spirit" simply because the Holy Spirit has revealed it, taught it, and makes it final and sure. But all such passages simply prove the faithfulness of God, and his power to fulfill his promises-that is God's side. But man's side, as many like passages show, is to ful-fill his part of the covenant in faithfulness to God. All such

passages properly considered clearly and unmistakably show the two sides of salvation-God's side and man's side. So far as God's side is concerned, he is able to "confirm us to the end," but it depends upon man's faithfulness to God as well as God's faithfulness to man. And God is able to "preserve" the saved in Christ if they do not "spoil," in which case the Lord says he will "spew them out" of his mouth! Plain-ly, God's promises in the matter are conditional upon man's faithfulness.

(9) The doctrine of election-Christ died for the elect.

If that proves anything on the point, then all are elect, for Christ died for all-"he tasted death for every man"-Heb.

2:9. That idea generates the doctrine of partial atonement, makes each and every one an individual of destiny, and denies all free moral agency and volition on the part of man. The fact that Christ died for a man does not mean that the man cannot be lost, for in Rom. 14:30 Paul plainly says that the "brother" for whom Christ died can be destroyed and perish.

(10) Saved as by fire-1 Cor. 3:15.

"If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but himself shall be saved yet so as by fire." It is argued that this passage teaches that it is a man's work that is lost- but the saved man himself cannot be lost. But Paul simply represented himself as a builder in verse 10, and this illustra-tion carries through verse 15. Paul's converts were the mate-rail that went into the building. Though he may lose his work, the material that goes into his building, yet he him-self is saved. It proves the possibility of apostasy rather than the impossibility, for the converts that make up the mate-rial in the building may be lost. It shows that Paul's con-verts could be lost. So may the man "himself" if he does as did the converts in the illustration.


(11) Created unto good works-Eph. 2:10. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God ordained that we should walk in them." It is thought that because God has "created" us unto good works that we are so "ordained" as to be unable to fall away from them. But God created Adam for good, in his own image, and declared the creation good-but Adam sinned, and by this very doctrine we are told that the de-pravity of the whole race is the result-the "Adamic sin" is their argument for total depravity. Why, then, could not the one "created unto good works" now apostatize-like Adam did? The truth is, we are not created directly, but by law. We are "created" when we become "new creatures in Christ" -2 Cor. 5:17-and that is done by that which puts us into Christ, and these same created new creatures, in verse 10, Paul said "receive the things done in his body, whether good or bad" when they "appear before the judgment seat of Christ."

(12) Not under law, but under grace-Rom. 6:15. Because Paul declared that we are not under the law, but under grace, one Baptist debater exclaimed that he was "scot free from law"! So no matter what he does, the grace of God will save him! But Paul says of those "without law" that they are "not without law to God, but under law to Christ"-1 Cor. 9:21. Because a man is not under the law of Moses does not mean that he is "scot free from law." Paul says that he is under law to Christ. In Rom. 3:27 he calls it "the law of faith"-faith is a law. The law of faith is the gospel. James calls it "the perfect law of liberty"-Jas. 1:22-25-and says that one must be a "doer" of it to be bless-ed, and that he must "continue therein."

(13) No condemnation in Christ-Rom. 8:1. It is claimed that this passage puts the one in Christ out of reach of all condemnation. But this statement is qualified by the clause, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the

spirit." True, the American Standard Revised Version omits that clause from the text of verse 1, but it is in verse 4, and repeated in verse 13, of the same chapter. So this argument amounts to nothing at all.

(14) No unrighteousness in Christ-Jno. 7:18.

It is said that if one in Christ can sin, it would bring unrighteousness, or corruption into Christ. But it is ad-mitted that a child of God can get drunk, a fact no Baptist preacher will deny. According to that, a drunk Baptist would mean a drunk Christ! Paul told the Corinthians that they were "saints" and "sanctified in Christ Jesus"-1 Cor. 1:2- but he said they were "carnal"-1 Cor. 3:3-did that bring carnality into Christ? Their sophistry contradicts the Bible at every turn.

(15) Christ is the believer's Advocate and Intercessor- Heb. 7:25; 1 Jno. 2:1.

It is asserted on this point that our Advocate cannot lose a case. But they miss the point. Jesus Christ is not a criminal lawyer in heaven, defending criminals on earth. John said plainly that Jesus is the Advocate for those who "confess" their sins and "walk in the light, as he is in the light." To such he is "faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."-1 Jno. 1:7-9. But if a child of God cannot sin, then Jesus Christ has never interceded for a Christian. There is no need of a mediator, nor an intercessor, if the regenerated spirit of a man cannot sin. The doctrine contradicts the very passages used to teach it.

If the regenerated spirit cannot sin, and it is only the body that sins, then the body is lost while the spirit is saved- so we will have a bodiless spirit in heaven, and a spiritless body in hell!

(16) Hope purifies the believer-1 Jno. 3:3.

It is asserted that if hope makes the believer pure, then there is no sin in a believer. Does hope purify adultery, fornication, covetousness and lust? All of these tilings are


the works of the flesh against which Paul warned the Galatian believers-Gal. 5:19-25. Paul said that faith is the substance of things hoped for-faith stands under hope-and one may lose his faith-1 Tim. 4:1-hence, lose his hope, and there-fore lose his purification. What John said is that the one who has this hope "purifies" himself. If one is living in sinful practices, he is not purifying himself; he does not have this hope that makes him pure, and is therefore not being purified.

(17) The believer is a partaker of the divine nature-2 Pet. 1:4-and if a child of God is lost, a part of God's nature will be in hell.

But Paul declares in Acts 17:29 that all men are the "off-spring of God," and that God is the Father of the spirits of all men-Heb. 2:9-so according to that argument, if any-body is lost, a part of God's nature will be in hell; hence, there will be no hell! These Baptist preachers ought to join the Universalists and be done with it, for universalism is the consequence of their argument.

(18) Life is everlasting, and cannot end or be lost-Jno.


The life is everlasting, but the life everlasting may not be everlastingly possessed. Jesus Christ is everlasting; the grave once had him; but the grave did not have him everlastingly. The life mentioned in this text is the promise of heaven which all true believers possess, but we may come short of it- Heb. 4:1-if we fail to "take heed"-Heb .3:12-and if we cease to "give diligence"-Heb. 4:11.

There are many other passages that are often quoted and perverted in the effort to sustain the denominational dogma of the impossibility of apostasy, but they are all alike misused and misapplied.

By type and antitype, precept and example, parable and illustration, and every means that language could employ to couch things in words that represent ideas, the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy stands repudiated by the teach-ing of God, Christ and the apostles.

Now friends, to any one who has respect for the word of God, it has been proved that a child of God, one who has obey-ed the gospel, and who has become a Christian, can forfeit divine grace, turn away from the faith, abandon it, lose it and be lost. Contrary to the opposite doctrine, this teach-ing is conducive to effort, fidelity to Christ and persever-ance in the graces and duties of a Christian. It will cause Christians to watch their lives, to repent of their sins, to live godly lives, to bring forth the fruit of righteousness in life, according to these many New Testament exhortations. It does not void the grace of God, the blood of Christ, nor the prom-ises of God, but it recognizes the responsibility of man and his accountability to God, in the keeping of his word, in order for the promises of God to be fulfilled in him. We urge you now, in view of the solemn warnings of God, and the precious promises of the gospel, to become a Christian, have your sins pardoned, put the sinful life behind you, re-solve to live the divine life here, and when you come to the end of the way, die in the triumphs of a living faith and in the hope of life and bliss over there.



We are happy to come before God again to resume a study of his word. I read to you from John 16. "These things I have spoken unto you, that ye should not be offend-ed. They shall put you out of the synagogues; yea, the time cometh that whosoever killeth you, will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you be-cause they have not known the Father, nor me. But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you. But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh of me: Whither goest thou? But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. Of sin, because they believed not on me; of righteousness, because I go to my Father and ye see me no more; of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." (John 16:1-11)

Our lesson tonight has to do with the influence of the Holy Spirit-what the Holy Spirit does and how it is done.

The phrase, "spiritual influence," with most people is mysterious because it is "spiritual," and anything spiritual is thought to be mystical. That does not follow.

It is my purpose tonight to get before you the work of the Holy Spirit, and how the Holy Spirit does that work; to show you that it is an intelligent, rational process. Man is an intelligent being, and God influences him through in-telligent means; through testimony which is adapted to his mind; through words that represent ideas; words of the Spirit to teach the "things of the Spirit."

Christianity differs from all human systems of phi-losophy or religion, in that it offers to men a spiritual dy-namic, the Holy Spirit, which inspires the word of God, warms the church from coldness to enthusiasm, and strength-ens the Christian in the struggle between the flesh and the spirit. What we mean by "spiritual influence" is simply the influence which the Holy Spirit exerts; the influence the Holy Spirit brings to bear upon the mind and the hearts of men.

As the term "spiritual gifts" means the gifts of the Spirit, so the expression, "spiritual influence," means the influence of the Spirit.

How does the Holy Spirit exercise such influence? The question cannot be answered in the light of science, phil-osophy, reason, or education. Science and philosophy are as silent as the tomb on the subject of the existence, pres-ence, potency, power, and influence of the Holy Spirit. This is not a scientific subject. It is not a philosophical subject. Science does not reveal it. The Apostle said, in 1 Cor. 2:14, that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them, because they are spirit-ually discerned." The natural man is simply the man of natural knowledge. The natural man is not the "totally de-praved man" of Calvinistic theology; nor the uninspired man, as such, as sometimes argued. The natural man is simply the man who depends on natural means for his knowledge and and information. We are all natural men-men of natural resources. The things of the Spirit of God are not to be re-ceived through the channels and resources of natural informa-tion.

The scientist is a natural man, but the "things of the Spirit" are not scientific subjects. The astronomer is a nat-ural man-he can take his telescope and peer into the heavens


to observe things of an astrophysical and astronomical nature. But he cannot receive through that means the knowledge of "things of the Spirit." The geologist is a natural man-he examines the rocks, strata laid upon strata, to ascertain things geological; but he does not learn the "things of the Spirit" through his natural resources. The chemist is a natural man, and discovers in his laboratory many things by chemical ex-periment-but the chemist does not receive information of the things of the Spirit by chemical experiments. Why? "Be-cause, they are spiritually discerned"-that is, they are reveal-ed by the Spirit. "Unto us (the apostles) God revealed these things."

Then we have a theme that has to do with revelation. By revelation I mean the Bible. The "tilings" of the Spirit are the things that the Holy Spirit has revealed in the Bi-ble. The natural man is the man of natural knowledge. Through natural resources he cannot know or receive the knowledge of the things that belong to the realm of things revealed-to the realm of revelation. The things of the re-vealed realm cannot be ascertained through the realm of the natural knowledge, of natural information.

We stand in the realm of divine revelation in this study. Follow the Bible, and we walk in the light; but follow feel-ings, visions and dreams, and we wander in the maze of mystery.



On this or any other subject there are a few tilings need-ful to know as a basis for understanding, in an intelligent discussion. The right division of the word of God, the prop-er classification of passages, is necessary to such an understand-ing. Misunderstanding is due to the misapplication of the scriptures on the work of the Holy Spirit; the mistake of ap-plying texts to everybody that refer only to the apostles, or to a special class.


There are men who affirm in debate that Holy Spirit baptism must be received in order to become or to be a child of God. It would place me in a very inconsistent attitude to debate with any man who I believed had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. If his claims were true, I would be debating with the Holy Spirit, or placed in the unusual posi-tion of debating with an apostle of Christ. If one is baptized with the Holy Spirit now, in what sense is such a man in-ferior to an apostle of Christ?

The man who claims Holy Spirit baptism ought to be able to prove it; there ought to be some way to know it, and show it. The apostles proved that they were baptized in the HolySpirit. Jesus saidtothem, "Take nothought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you." (Matt. 10: 19-20) The parallel passage from Luke's record reads: "Take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: for the Holy Spirit shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." (Lk. 12:11-12) But the man who affirmed in debate with me that he had the Holy Spirit baptism, could not speak without his manuscript and his notes, and he had difficulty in his efforts to even quote the scriptures he wanted to use, and often failed to find passages in the Bible that he desired to read. Rather bluntly I told him tofolduphis manuscript andlay aside his Bible, if he had received Holy Spirit baptism he needed neither the Bible nor his notes, for the Holy Spirit in him would tell him "what" to say and "how" to answer.

It was this power that enabled apostles of Christ to prove their claims, and Holy Spirit baptism was accompanied with the miraculous manifestations by which to prove it and to demonstrate it. But when a man today merely asserts that he has Holy Spirit baptism, with no demonstration of its powers, others whose claims he will not accept loudly as-sert as much. The Holy Rollers, Nazarenes, Apostolics, Pen-


tecostals, Missouri Mormons and Utah Mormons all lay claim to Holy Spirit baptism, but they will not accept each other's claims. How can we know that he (who claims it) has it, but they (others who claim it) do not have it? Where is the proof?

These modern preachers who claim Holy Spirit baptism do not even talk like the Spirit-baptized apostles talked. The second chapter of Acts furnishes the example. The apos-tles commanded believers on Pentecost to "repent and be bap-tized, the name of JesusChrist, for the remission of sins." Did anybody ever hear one of these so-called "Holy Ghost-baptized" preachers of modern days tell sinners to do that? No. Do they talk like the apostles talked? No. Well, if they have what the apostles had it does seem that they ought to talk like the apostles talked.

But we hear them pray for Holy Spirit baptism. How many times is one baptized in the Holy Spirit? How long does it last, and why is it necessary to always be praying for it? Were the apostles baptized in the Holy Spirit more than once? When does it play out? When a man prays for the Holy Spirit baptism, is he a child of God or an alien? In Luke 11:13 Jesus said the children of God ask, not aliens. But how can a child of God pray for Holy Spirit baptism if it it necessary to have such in order to become a child, as it is contended. We are commanded to pray "ac-cording to his will"-just where is there a command for an alien, or anybody else, to pray for Holy Spirit baptism?

Jesus told the apostles that they would be "endued with power," or "clothed with power" from heaven. So Holy Spirit baptism is defined as an "overwhelming" in the Holy Spirit "from on high." If any power of the Spirit is lack-ing, it would not be an overwhelming. But if one is over-whelmed in the Spirit, he has everything the apostles of Christ had. There can be no measures of Holy Spirit bap-tism, it was the same to all who had it, and alike to all. No


apostle of Christ had more or less of Holy Spirit baptism than another apostle. So again I ask: If men were baptized in the Holy Spirit today in what sense and to what extent would they be inferior to the apostles of Jesus Christ? The purpose of the Holy Spirit in the apostles was to teach them, make them remember what Jesus had said, guide them into all the truth, and reveal to them the whole scheme of re-demption. It was therefore special, not general; and to make a general application of the passages of scripture that ap-plied only to the apostles of Christ, is the fundamental mis-take of all who claim that baptism in the Holy Spirit is received today.

Time was when the whole scheme of redemption was concealed in the depths of the divine mind. No creature of the universe, whatever his position or however exalted, had ever conceived it. It was the purpose of the Holy Spirit in the apostles of Jesus Christ to reveal it. 'For God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God . . . . which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teach-eth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth." (2 Cor. 2:10-13) The baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a measure given to men. It belonged to the Holy Spirit alone, through the apos-tles of Christ, to reveal the scheme: of redemption, and to demonstrate its divine origin. Therein its special mission was fulfilled and its manifestations ended. If it were yet in force, so also must all of its extraordinary manifestations be present. As goes the proposition, so must be the dem-onstration. As miraculous creation was preparatory to nat-ural law, so was miraculous revelation preparatory to spirit-ual law. The making of a constitution requires constitu-tional powers. But when the divine constitution was made,

never to be changed, the powers vested in the makers ended.

The characteristics of Holy Spirit baptism are sufficient evidence that it was not general. (1) It was a promise, not a command; it was received, not obeyed. (2) It was ad-


ministered by Jesus Christ, not by man; and descended from heaven, not performed on the earth; it was therefore a mir-acle, not an ordinance. (3) It was not administered in any name; it was not a memorial; it was not a monument; it was not a likeness of anything; it was not a type, a symbol, or a form of any fact or truth; it was therefore extraordinary, and not a permanent element in the church. But baptism is a command to be obeyed by man; administered by man; in the name of Jesus Christ, into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; performed in water; it is monumental, and is the form of the facts of the gospel in the likeness of the death, the burial and the resurrection of Jesus Christ; and by it the one who obeys the command enters the new life.

(Rom. 6:17)

When the word of God was in the men chosen by Jesus Christ to reveal it, the confirmation of the word was neces-sary. That is why miraculous demonstration was required. If the proposition is miraculous, the demonstration must be miraculous; if the proposition is historical, the proof must be historical. Now, it was the divine prerogative of the Holy Spirit to demonstrate the scheme of redemption, there-fore it was confirmed by miraculous powers. But having been once confirmed, it is placed on the historical-basis, and to reject the miracles of the New Testament by demand-ing the performance of such miracles now, is a rejection of all divine history connected with the establishment of the church and the inauguration of the gospel dispensation. "How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirm-ed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will." (Heb. 2:3-4) Such special gifts were for the special purposes of bearing witness to the truth orally delivered, to confirm the spoken word; they were special gifts imparted "according to his will," and therefore not general. Being


provisional and temporary, they were not permanent, and therefore ceased.



The fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth chapters of John

make up a private conversation that Jesus Christ had with his twelve apostles, before he went away. The promise that he made to send the Comforter was not a general promise. That promise was not made to all. It was a promise to the apostles. He contrasted the time referred to as "yet with you," with the time that he designated as "going "away." He said that it was expedient to go away, for if he should not go away the Comforter would not come; but if he went away, he would send the Comforter to them-the apostles. "Whom the world cannot receive"-no one in the world could receive this Comforter-the Holy Spirit in this meas-ure-except the apostles. The "world" here does not mean the unconverted man, the alien, or sinner. The "world"

here is mankind, all men apart from the apostles.

We have heard this passage used against the idea of the direct operation of the Holy Spirit in conversion. It is used to prove that the Holy Spirit does not perform a direct operation on the sinner in conversion, because Jesus said, "the world" cannot receive the Holy Spirit. There are many passages by which to prove that the Holy Spirit does not perform a direct operation upon the sinner, but this verse is not a proof text on that point; for Christians do not re-ceive the thing mentioned here. When Jesus said, "Whom the world cannot receive." he meant mankind in general, all other men in the world, in contrast with the apostles. No one else could receive the Comforter-only the apostles. This Comforter was to take the place of Christ with the apostles. He would sent the Comforter because of his absence. While Jesus was with them they did not need this Comforter; but in the absence of the Lord-without his personal presence-


the apostles would need this Comforter. Why? Because when Christ was present he was their Teacher, but in his absence the Comforter would be their teacher. He would "guide into all the truth;" he would "show the things to come;" he would "instruct," and "bring to remembrance" the things that Christ had spoken; he would reveal "things to come." Without the Comforter they could forget what Jesus Christ had spoken. Their fallible memories could not be trusted. This Comforter, the Paraclete, which was the Spirit in the special measure, promised to the apostles, would guide them, instruct them, bring to their remembrance all things that Christ had spoken, and reveal things he had not spoken.

There are two phases of that promise: (1) To bring to remembrance all that Christ had spoken to them; and, (2) to teach and instruct concerning things that should later be revealed. That was the two-fold work of the Holy Spirit in the apostles-to give them an infallible memory of the thing he had taught them; and to reveal in the future addi-tional truth during the dispensation of divine reve1ation. It was a promise to the apostles only. No one else, saint or sinner, can receive the Holy Spirit in the measure of this prom-ise, the Comforter, which Jesus sent to his apostles, to take the place of Jesus with them.


I now call your attention to this chart, on the four-fold influence of the Holy Spirit.

Prop I: The Holy Spirit exercised an influence in the apostles, and upon the apostles, which he does not exercise upon mankind in general.