•

Background material for the Church History class at Leander

10/14/2007

Material primarily comes from these sources:

“Generations of Praise: The History of Worship,” by Shields and Butzu
“A New Song for an Old World: Musical Thought in the Early Church,” by Stapert
A work of love by Keith Sisman, a website titled “Traces of the Kingdom”
“Radical Restoration,” by F. LaGard Smith
“A First Century Church for the Twenty-First Century,” by Forever Family

BAPTISM –

In the first case, pagan baptisms were essentially a civic event: as the prince, so the people. Once the ruler accepted Christianity, it naturally followed that all the subjects of his domain would follow suit. Baptism was thus associated in the mind of the Carolingian princes with participation in the Holy Roman Empire. The symbolic association of baptism as participation in the Pascal mystery of Christ may have been completely lost if baptism had not been administered on Easter and the Latin rites had not been explained at some point. Of an organized adult catechumenate for these large groups of pagan converts we know very little, but historical trends suggest there was little theological education prior to baptism as regarded the masses of newly converted peoples.

As for the rising infant mortality rate, it had long been the practice of the Church to baptize those who were near to physical death, and infants were no exception. But by the eighth century, baptismal theology became less centered on a symbolic identification with Christ in his dying and rising as it had become a primarily instrumental means by which original sin was washed away. Baptism as the instrumental means for the remission of sins was never singled out as an exclusive topic in the baptismal treatises of the Patristic Era: it was almost always a part of a larger picture that included identification with Christ and the People of God; passing over from Egypt to Sinai and from the Wilderness into Canaan, circumcision of heart, verbal renunciation of a former life and its environment, huiothesia (adoption/"son"-ship), and priestly ordination/ anointing, among others. Even Augustine, in speaking of baptism for the remission of original sin, did not see infant baptism as the preferred mode, but rather as a fortunate accommodation. A few centuries later, however, it was considered a practical imperative that baptism be administered as soon as possible after birth if a baby was not expected to live. We can safely posit infant baptism as the exception to the norm, since there existed, at least in the western Church, no specific rite for the baptism of infants.
The same rites that were originally disposed towards adults were utilized with only minor (but awkward) changes. During the weeks of the scrutinies in Lent, the infants were given blessed salt on their tongues, a practice that might have mixed with a more ancient tradition of giving salt to newborns. As with the adult catechumenate, the Lord's Prayer and Creed were recited to the infants in theory that they would learn them before baptism. Immediately before baptism proper, the effata rite (opening of the ears and nostrils) was performed by the priest along with the anointing of the infant's breast and back, followed by the renunciation of Satan— this time, by the godparents! and the recitation of the creed, again by proxy (the infants having learned it, theoretically). At all times, the priest addressed the infant(!) while the godparents made the appropriate responses, an indication that the exact adherence to ritual word and gesture superseded any practical concessions!

1510 --

Many of the reformed rites we have just surveyed contain rejections of what their authors saw as the heresy of the Anabaptists. This movement was what more recently has been called "The Radical Reformation" or “The Left Wing of the Reformation." They wanted to take Luther's ideas of reform to what they saw as their logical conclusion and go back to the Scriptures to restore the practices of the earliest Christians. They found in the New Testament no explicit mention of infants being baptized and decided on that account that baptism was meant only for those who were able to make their own profession of faith. They then decided they had not really been baptized and arranged to be baptized (again, as seen by the others) as believers. From this came the designation Anabaptists, or Wiedertäufer in German, both of which mean rebaptizers.

1520 –
Other similar groups seeking radical reform (sometimes termed restitution, what was later called restoration) arose during this time in Strasbourg and Basel. Early in their work of reform both Zwingli and Bucer had questioned the meaning and efficacy of infant baptism, but eventually justified it on the basis of its analogy to circumcision in the older covenant. Luther (and Calvin) held to the medieval doctrine of original sin, which taught that every child is born with the taint of Adam's sin and so should be baptized for forgiveness of those sins and to escape punishment for them. This seemed vital in that time when so many children did not live to adolescence, let alone adulthood. The first obvious break from that position came in Zurich, Switzerland, when Georg Blaurock, Conrad Grebel, and Felix Manz openly disagreed with Zwingli over both infant baptism and the concept of the Volkskirche in which all people born in a Christian region were considered Christians. The earliest recorded adult baptism in this period was on January 21, 1525, when Blaurock was baptized by Grebel. By this time Balthasar Hubmaier (1480-1528) was pushing reform in his parish in Waldshut, Switzerland, and many of his parishioners were postponing the baptism of their children. On Easter in 1525, he and sixty others were rebaptized and within a few days, three hundred more. The movement grew fast enough that in 1529 the imperial meeting at Speyer declared that these rebaptizers should be put to death. They were hunted, arrested, tortured, and killed in many parts of Europe.
Their best-known statement of positions on various issues was published in The Schleitheim Confession of Faith, which includes as Article I the following on baptism:

Baptism shall be given to all those who have been taught repentance and the amendment of life and [who] believe truly that their sins are taken away through Christ, and to all those who desire to walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and be buried with Him in death, so that they might rise with Him: to all those who with such an understanding themselves desire and request it from us; hereby is excluded all infant baptism, the greatest and first abomination of the pope. For this you have the reasons and the testimony of the writings and the practice of the apostles (Mt. 28:19; Mk. 16:6; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:36; Acts 16:31-33; 19:4). We wish simply yet resolutely and with assurance to hold to the same.

A large number of these people made their way to the Netherlands, where they were greeted and pastored by Menno Simons and his followers, from whom they get the name Mennonites. The spectrum of beliefs among the radical reformers is broad, but what unites them is their insistence that the true church is comprised of people who have come to a personal belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and have freely chosen to follow him as Lord. For some this was an inner state and had little to do with a physical act like water baptism, but for many baptism in water (at this point the amount was not an issue) was an important act of an individual's free will, initiating the person into the church, the body of believers. This does not sound very radical to us today, but in sixteenth-century Europe, where for over 1,000 years the church had been made up of everybody born in a Christian land, it was revolutionary and therefore was dealt with as a threat to public order in both Catholic and Protestant regions.

LORD’S SUPPER –

Soon Martin Bucer revised Schwarz's translation, emphasizing the place of the sermon and removing references to the work of the priest as sacrifice. In contrast to Zwingli, whose reform separated the Lord's Supper from the sermon by making the communion services special but rare occasions, Bucer's rite reunited pulpit and table in each service.

When Calvin returned to Geneva he was determined that the balance of word and table he had enjoyed in Strasbourg should be applied also in Geneva, but the town officials refused to let him serve communion every Sunday, staying with the schedule set by Zwingli.

Luther attempted to maintain a conception of the real presence of Christ in the supper by means of the doctrine of consubstantiation, by which he saw Christ present with the bread and wine instead of the elements becoming Christ's body and blood. In Luther's absence from Wittenberg, Karlstadt and others instituted reforms of the mass in which both bread and wine were offered to all participants, but Luther insisted that they go more slowly with their reforms. He postponed this step for two years while the people were instructed more fully in the biblical backgrounds of the Lord's Supper. Luther in this way laid great emphasis on the preaching and hearing of the word to elicit faith in the congregants, in contrast to the earlier Catholic insistence that the sacraments, when correctly administered, carried their own validity (opus operatum). Luther's emphasis on Christ's words of institution as words to be understood by communicants and not as magical ("Hocus Pocus" comes from the Latin, "Hoc est corpus rneum," "This is my body") led him to understand those words quite literally. He railed against Zwingli and others who insisted that Christ meant, "This represents my body." He insisted that communicants should honor the blessed bread and wine as the very body and blood, even if not in the sense of a miraculous change as held by Catholic doctrine.

On the other hand, Zwingli reacted strongly against the medieval notion that at the elevation of the host by the priest the bread became the actual body of Christ and the wine his blood. He held that bread and wine, far from becoming body and blood, merely represent to the worshiper body and blood. That move, along with his strong emphasis on preaching the word, tended to deemphasize the Lord's Supper. Zwingli scheduled communion every quarter for his congregation, which was in many instances an improvement over the annual communion legislated by the Catholic church, but it also placed the Lord's Supper in the shadows, compared to its central place in every mass.

Thus Calvin stands between Zwingli, who emphasizes the word at the expense of the sacraments, and Luther, who tries to keep the real presence of Christ in the material bread and wine.

The Anglicans, on the other hand, continued weekly communion as part of the reformed order of worship. The first part of the mass translated into English was the communion service (1548), which was integrated into the whole English service the next year. The revision of 1552 shows Bucer's influence on Thomas Cranmer. All indications of transubstantiation, of elevation and adoration of the elements, and of sacrifice are gone, and the simple words of institution are substituted. Now the emphasis is on the reception of the bread and wine by the people and not, as in the Catholic mass, on the actions and words of the priest.

In contrast to the Anglican high ceremony, John Knox led his Scots followers to a simple meal of communion at a long table in the center of the worshiping community—a reminder of the Lord's last supper with his disciples.

The Reformation period produced many different understandings and practices of the Lord's Supper. The spectrum runs from the extreme sacramentalism of the Orthodox and Catholics to the extreme nonsacramentalism of the Quakers. We offer here just an overview of this spectrum.

· Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches hold to the doctrine of transubstantiation, believing that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ sacrificed again at the hands of the priest as he utters the words of institution. The difference between the two is just that Catholic theologians and liturgists attempt to explain the change in terms of Platonic philosophy and the Orthodox merely claim that it is a mystery

· Lutherans generally hold to the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine, but deny that the actions of the presiding minister effect a sacrifice. There have been many attempts to explain the presence (cf. Luther's "consubstantiation"), but none of these have become essential doctrines.

· Calvinistic approaches to the Supper, which include a broad range of churches, including Reformed, Presbyterian, Anglican, and Methodist, hold to a spiritual presence of Christ in the rite of the Lord's Supper, but not especially in the elements themselves.

· Churches following the pattern of Zwingli include most Baptists, Mennonites and Amish, Restoration Movement congregations, Evangelical Free Church, and most Pentecostals and Adventists. They understand the bread and wine to be symbols of Christ's body and blood and nothing more. However, the practice of these churches differs widely, from the insistence of the Restoration Movement that the Lord's Supper is the central act of worship and should be observed every week to the Quaker teaching that Christ never meant the Supper to continue past the first generation of Christians.

PRAISE –

Modern worshipers who are unaware of the history of their Church often take it for granted that they are directly connected to some primitive and immutable form of Christian worship that can be found somewhere in the New Testament. Others have learned of Christian worship’s deeper footings in the Jewish tradition and these can, at the very least, appreciate the ways in which the older forms achieved a radically new significance by the saving mystery of Christ as proclaimed by the New Testament authors. But our closer examination of this topic reveals that we are hard pressed to find any singular, original, biblical pattern of Christian worship that once existed or exists in its pristine form today—even among those churches who make such claims.
In summary, the surviving evidence suggests that early Christian psalmody came into Christian daily life from Jewish daily life. It is difficult to deny that psalmody occurred in formal worship, but it is impossible to prove that it did. In any case, it is clear that psalms were not only — probably not even primarily — songs for formal, public worship among the early Christians any more than they were among the Jews. Wherever Christians sang, psalms were their songs.
As is true with other reforms, there is great variety among the various reformers in relation to music as praise of God. Zwingli, even though he was arguably the best musician of the major reformers, decided that even congregational singing detracted from the reception of the preached word, and so he developed a service with no music. Luther, on the other hand, loved music and early in his reforming activities began to write praise words and compose (or borrow) music to which to sing them.
In the same passages from Ephesians and Colossians referred to above, Paul points to one other aspect of Christian song. In both passages he says that Christians should sing "with all your heart" or "in your hearts." This could be taken to mean silent singing, a phenomenon advocated by mystic Jews and neo-Platonists of the early Christian era. For example, Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenist-educated Jew at about the time of Jesus, wrote that "one cannot truly offer thanks to God as the vast majority of men do, with external effects, consecrated gifts and sacrifices ... but rather with songs of praise and hymns — not such as the audible voice sings, but such as are raised and re-echoed by the invisible mind."

But mystical silent singing is not what Paul had in mind when he said "sing . . . in your hearts." Silent singing does not make sense in the context of these passages because the congregation sings "to one another." Neither does it fit with the principle of 1 Corinthians 14:26 that "all things be done for building up."
Both Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16 contain the statement "to one another." So we take this phrase and we say see they are all together and this is the worship. The problem is that “to one another” may not be the best interpretation of "heautou" the Greek word employed by Paul in both texts. In the Greek grammar and the other passages where the same word is used it is translated “yourselves”. This would cause problems for those who would make this an iron clad worship assembly. Well, it would if they truly care what God's word says.

At this point a word of caution is in order. We should not fall into the error of assuming that, when early Christian writings mention the singing of psalms and hymns, they are referring to "church music." Some of the references are certainly in the context of liturgical singing; but very often they are not. More often, when mentioning psalms and hymns, the early Christian writers were advocating or describing the singing of that music in everyday life. For them, church music was not one thing and the music of everyday life something else.

This description of the Temple liturgy confirms the impression about Temple psalmody left by Old Testament sources: (1) it was part of a highly formalized liturgy; (2) it was closely associated with the sacrifice; (3) it was performed by the Levites, that is, by specially trained musicians; and (4) it was accompanied by stringed instruments, that is, by the softer instruments that could support the singing but would not cover the words.
The last feature is an indication that Jewish psalmody was word-oriented, a characteristic that set it apart from the music of the sacrificial rites of the Israelites' pagan neighbors. Pagan sacrificial music typically featured the frenzy-inducing sound of the loud double-reed instruments and the rhythms of orgiastic dancing. Words were superfluous. Temple music was different from pagan music in all these respects: words were primary in it, and they governed the rhythms; instrumental accompaniment was by stringed instruments that supported the monophonic vocal line, perhaps with some heterophonic embellishments, but never covering or distracting attention away from the words; instruments were used independently only for signaling purposes, as when trumpets and cymbals signaled the beginning of the psalm and the places at the end of sections where the worshipers should prostrate themselves.
Synagogues are the other places we usually associate with Jewish psalmody. The singing there was very different from that in the Temple. The gatherings in the synagogues were not for sacrifice and did not require priests and Levites. Therefore, synagogue psalmody was not part of an elaborate liturgical ceremony and was not in the hands of specially trained musicians. It was undoubtedly simple — probably little more than a slightly embellished recitation — and did not make use of instruments.

QUESTION – Where in scripture was the synagogue service authorized? (Several follow-on questions and conclusions after this answer is found!)

Christianity began as an offshoot of the Jewish religion, and the first Christians attended both the synagogue services and their own private gatherings. It is not surprising, then, to find that the new sect retained many features of the Jewish liturgy, adapting them as needed to fit the new faith.... From the musical point of view, the most important borrowings from the synagogue were the chanting of Bible readings and the solo singing of psalms with congregational responses.

All indications are that early Christian psalmody was similar in style, method of performance, and character to the psalmody that eventually made its way into the synagogues as a regular feature of worship. It was simple, performed by "amateurs," and completely devoid of instrumental accompaniment. Given the Temple psalmody's close association with sacrifice, which was no longer necessary after Christ's final sacrifice, and the early church's lack of opportunity for the institutional development of trained choirs and instrumental ensembles like those of the Levites, it is not surprising that the early church did not follow the lead of the Temple in its psalmody. But, if it did not come from the Temple, and synagogue psalmody was a later development, where did early Christian psalmody come from?
That question betrays a hidden assumption that has lurked in scholars' minds for a long time, the assumption that psalms were exclusively — or at least primarily — music for worship in the Temple, synagogue, or church. But, as a careful reading of the sources will show, psalms were as much "house music" as they were "church music" both for the Jews and for the early Christians. The sources indicate that psalms were an important part of the daily life of Jews and early Christians alike. Jewish households provided many occasions, both formal and informal, for singing.

WORSHIP ORDER and CONTENT –

The Puritans who settled early in New England had separated from the Church of England in 1662. They had been influenced by the doctrines of Calvin, but, contrary to Calvin himself, they took the New Testament alone as normative instruction in worship. However, since they had trouble deciding just which New Testament texts were meant to be applied in worship, the ultimate decisions were left up to the local congregations. This congregational autonomy in matters of worship modes was firmly established, as the Congregationalists became the dominant voices of the separatist movement. Rather than liturgical anarchy, this produced a surprisingly high degree of unanimity in worship practices.

RESTORATION MOVEMENT –

Out of this mix arose a nineteenth-century reformation movement led by Barton W. Stone (1772-1844) and Alexander Campbell (1786-1866), who determined to find their Christian life and worship modeled in the New Testament itself. Eight years before Alexander Campbell arrived in America from Ireland (by way of Scotland), Stone was involved in what has come to be called The Cane Ridge Meeting. What sort of meeting it was has been the subject of debate, but the earliest records of it refer to it as a sacramental meeting. These "Holy Fairs," as we saw in chapter eight, were not uncommon in Scotland, where the Lord's Supper was celebrated only occasionally and often in open-air meetings to accommodate the crowds. Stone had experienced at least one such meeting in southern Kentucky, and so he organized one on the grounds of the Presbyterian church he served in Cane Ridge, northeast of Lexington. He had convinced a number of other ministers, from several denominations, to cooperate in the venture, and when they met in August 1801, they were overwhelmed by the response. Participants reported that at least 12,000 people took part over the six days—people of many traditions and some of no Christian background at all. Preparation for the Lord's Supper lasted several days, during which people heard preaching aimed at leading them to repentance. They were encouraged to pray for forgiveness and to fast in preparation for communion. The phenomena experienced by hundreds of these participants seem very strange to us. They included fainting, howling, barking, and dancing—and perhaps the strangest of all, a beautifully sweet odor that surrounded many of them. There were, of course, skeptics, but for the most part the "exercises" were understood as powerful and miraculous works of the Holy Spirit.

In some contrast to the enthusiasm of the Cane Ridge sacramental meeting, Alexander Campbell's movement in Western Pennsylvania and down the Ohio River Valley distanced itself from what its leaders saw as the excesses of the revivalistic approach to both conversion and Christian worship. Stone himself appears to have seen such Holy Spirit phenomena not as ongoing experiences for the church, but as urges toward the unity of Christians at the Lord's table. Rejecting the scandalous divisions of the Protestantism of the time and the creeds they saw as encouraging such divisions, they rediscovered the centrality of the Lord's Supper in weekly corporate worship and encouraged its practice under the leadership of local elders instead of ordained clergy alone. They neither sought nor found a specific liturgical order in the New Testament, but maintained freedom for each local congregation to proceed with prayers, praises, The Lord's Supper, and the presentation of the word in an appropriate, orderly fashion. Campbell highlighted two characteristics of corporate worship: the centrality of the Lord's Supper and the inappropriateness of a sermon. This latter stemmed from his strict distinction between preaching (kerygma) and teaching (didache), the former being primarily for evangelism and therefore not appropriate for Christian worship, and the latter being appropriate for worship.

Preaching in the early years of this movement was oriented more to the mind than to the emotions. Faith was seen neither as an emotional response to the preaching nor as a miracle of grace, but rather as a natural human rational response to the presentation of the facts of the gospel as testified to by the biblical text and the history of the Church. Such evangelistic preaching was generally separated from the worship of baptized believers. Therefore worship was seen not so much as response to the moving of God's Spirit but as the congregation's obedient action to please God and to learn from God. What others called sacraments, the Campbellites and Stoneites called ordinances, thus emphasizing the obedience of the participants over the efficacy of the actions.

Interestingly, among many of these denominations, movements started during the later years of the century to return the Lord's Supper to its place at the center of weekly worship, and many congregations have increased the frequency of communion, often making it available every week. If not the theology of communion, certainly the frequency is becoming more common.

QUESTION – When did the Restoration of the Church of Christ begin?

European History of churches of Christ

Anglican clergyman, Dr Daniel Featly, wrote in about 1644 of the churches of Christ meeting in London and possibly elsewhere, where he calls the rebaptizing of adults "a new leaven," and that their position "is soured with it." Featly takes these congregations back to 1525 when he quotes from them "That baptism ought to be received by none, but such as can give a good account of their faith; and in case any have been baptized in their infancy, that they ought to he rebaptized after they come to years of discretion, before they are to be admitted to the church of Christ". These churches were in communication with other churches of Christ in America, nearly two hundred years before Campbell!

Featly, an enemy of the Lord's church, declares there were members of the church of Christ, in London, that they had existed in England during the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, James I! These congregations existed separately from the Church of England and dismissed infant baptism, baptising those who could give an account. Elsewhere Featly confirmed these congregations immersed for the remission of sins (Dippers Dipt), and used the identity - 'church of Christ'.

But Featly was wrong on one account, such congregations existed prior to 1525, being pre-reformation!

One question often asked about the ‘churches of Christ’ is; “have there always been congregations meeting like ourselves before the time of Thomas and Alexander Campbell?” The answer is Yes

One possible objection is the question, “how could people without our learning and knowledge come to our understanding?” The answer has to be that it is not our understanding but the plain teaching of scripture that these Christians came to understand, and obey. They lived in societies which had far greater spiritual values than the materialism of today. Divorce, evolution, denominations, the instrument and so on were not problems to them as they are to us. Likewise they rejected the traditions of Catholicism which left them with the Bible as their only guide. It was to Christ and His Word to which they submitted. To suggest that Christianity died out in the second and third centuries only to be restored in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is simply too horrible to contemplate.

Campbell wrote in 1837:

In reply to this conscientious sister, I observe, that if there be no Christians in the Protestant denominations, there are certainly none among the Romanists, none among the Jews, Turks, Pagans; and therefore no Christians in the world except ourselves, or such of us as keep, or strive to keep, all the commandments of Jesus. Therefore, for many centuries there has been no church of Christ, no Christians in the world; and the promises concerning the everlasting kingdom of Messiah have failed, and the gates of hell have prevailed against his church! This can not be; and therefore there are Christians among the denominations

"The union of Christians with the apostles' testimony is all-sufficient and alone sufficient to the conversion of the world."

The charges made against Christians through time can be paraphrased as follows;

1/ Rejection of infant baptism, their defense was that infants are without sin and that a person through their own choice should decide whether they wish to be baptized and wash away their sins, proclaiming the message of God’s grace and the free will of man.

2/ Rejection of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, their defense was that the Lord’s supper was not a sacrifice but a memorial to be taken on the first day of the week.

3/ Rejection of the Old Testament and certain New Testament passages, their defense was that they held all the scriptures sacred, but the Word of God needed to be rightly divided, the formal Priesthood of the Old Testament did not apply in the Christian era was one example.

4/ Rejection of church buildings and altars, their defense was that any place was a suitable place of Worship.

5/ Rejection of idols and images, their defense was that this practice was contrary to the Word of God.

6/ Rejection of sprinkling or pouring as a mode of baptism, their defense was that immersion was commanded in the Word of God.

7/ Rejection of a separate priesthood and clergy, their defense was that all were equal in Christ, proclaiming the 'Universal Priesthood of Believers.

8/ Rejection of prayers for the dead, holy days and good works (without faith, Ephesians 2:8-10 ), their defense was that these were contrary to the Word of God.

9/ Rejection of celibacy, the defense was that this was contrary to the Word of God.

10/ Rejection of the hierarchy of Bishops, the defense was that congregations were autonomous, being overseen by a plurality of Elders (Bishops).

11/ Another accusation made time and time again was the crime of heresy of Manichaeism, which goes back to a heretic named Manes or Mani who died around 276. This charge has always been strongly denied, evidence suggests that this was a contrived charge to gain quick conviction. One problem the authorities have always had with true believers who use the scriptures as a justification was that their defense could be seen publicly, therefore charges of Gnosticism and Manichaeism were often bought to gain a fast conviction, usually followed by death by burning.

Such were the complaints made and such was the defense (a return to scripture as the authority for the church and the Christian). Their defense by scripture was rejected by the authorities and banned. The traditions of the Catholic church would set the standard and many thousands died because they refused to obey the Pope.

Part of the letter written to Pope Jules 111, of Rome, in 1550, by his Cardinals. It is found in the National Bibliotheque in Paris, France. à

"Holiness, we reserve the more important of it to the last. The reading of the Gospel must be permitted as little as possible. The very little that is read generally at the Mass should be enough and it should be prohibited for anyone to read more. Here is the book that more than any other provoked rebellions against us, storms that have been risky in bringing us loss. In fact, if anyone reads accurately the teaching of the Bible and compares what occurs in our churches, he will soon find out the contradictions and will see that our teaching is far removed from that of the Bible and more often yet is in opposition to it. If the people realized this, they will provoke us without rest until all become unveiled and then we will become the object of ridicule and universal hate. It is necessary that the Bible be taken away and snatched from the hands of the people, however with much wisdom in order to not provoke trouble."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Heresbach, a friend of Erasmus, reported these words from Thomas Linacer, the respected Oxford professor, and the personal physician to both King Henry the 7th and 8th of England. On reading the New Testament for the first time (1524), Linacer said “Either this is not the gospel, or we are not Christians” having thrown the scriptures to one side.

Even the school of theology in Paris did not scruple to declare before the French parliament, “There is an end of religion if the study of Hebrew and Greek is permitted”.

History of the Great Reformation, Jean Henri Merle D’Aubigne, in 5 volumes, 1853 vol 1, page 43.

170 --

With certainty it can be guessed that the word ‘Baptism’ was in use in Europe including Britain from the year 170 onwards. At this time the British people spoke one or more of the several Celtic dialects, Latin or a Romano-Celtic dialect.

As many pictures from across Europe show, baptism in times past was understood to be immersion.

Baptising in Britain’s church buildings did not begin until about the year 627 when king Edwin built a baptistery, to be baptized in.

Picture below is believed to be this baptistery, which is in the church of St. Martin's, Canterbury. In the time of the Norman kings (1100s) it was adapted for infant immersion.

422 –

In 422 the Catholic Bishop Germanus complained of the British church that it practised believer’s baptism and rejected the authority of the pope and other Catholic doctrines. The Edict of pope Innocent 1 had made infant baptism (by immersion) compulsory in 407.

469 –

It was in the year 469 that the Saxons invaded south east Britain overthrowing Christianity. Possibly the Christian king Arthur the Great was the last Celtic (pre-English) king to oppose the Angles and Saxons. Christians fled to Cornwall and Wales. About the year 596 Augustine arrived in England and started to convert the Saxons, baptising in rivers by immersion. There is no mention in Britain of the baptising of children prior to Augustine. It would therefore appear that infant baptism (triune immersion) arrived in England around the year 600.

500 –

From around the late 500’s starting in the east a sect of Christians who were called Paulicians, because of their ability to defend their doctrine from the New Testament, particularly from the letters of the apostle Paul came to the notice of the authorities. They said that they were “Christians who were chosen of God” and called each other “brother or sister”. They had rejected the infant baptism of the Catholic church teaching that faith is required before baptism.

It would seem on examination that these were Christians holding to the pattern of the New Testament. They are also known elsewhere as Publicans particularly in England (Publicani from Paulikanoi from Paulicians). Their teachings quickly spread throughout Europe. The Irish/Scottish church of this time still practised believers baptism and generally rejected Roman Catholic teaching. It can be assumed that contact was made as the Celtic church at this time was working effectively in Europe. After severe persecution the Paulicians ended up in Bulgaria and other Balkan countries and there they assisted the French church during its persecution in the twelfth century when they became known as the Bougre (in middle English ‘Bugger’). We can establish with some certainty that New Testament Christianity was being propagated through out Europe and the east by the end of the eighth century.

689 --

In the year 689 king Inas, Ine or Iva of the West Saxons made the law that infants should be baptized (triune immersed) within thirty days of their birth. Further laws or church councils (synods) in Britain confirming immersion as the, or a, mode of baptism were passed in 821, 1106, 1172, 1195, 1200, 1217, 1220, 1224, 1240, 1287, 1306, 1422, 1547, 1564 and 1571. In 1603 a cannon was passed in the Church of England declaring both immersion and aspersion acceptable modes, although aspersion had been practised previously. In 1645 sprinkling was declared favourable and from this date immersion in the Church of England would disappear.

900 –

In France and Italy at this time many leaders in the Catholic church were getting increasingly concerned about the teachings and the growing power of the pope. By the year 900 congregations were being formed which were separate from the Catholic Church. The Catholic concept of the clergy was abandoned and no objection was found if those employed full time wished to be married. No special distinctions were made between those who were full time and those who were not. All believers were equal in Christ.

Evangelists were baptising believers into Christ, starting congregations throughout Europe. Each congregation was autonomous, with no hierarchy outside the local church. They met together on Sundays, often in their homes, to share together the Lord’s Supper as a memorial.

· Do not confuse Reformation with Restoration. The Restoration has always been around, the Reformed churches started after 1520. The Reformed church in Europe and England sought to destroy New Testament congregations with as much vehemence and hatred as that shown by Nero in the first century.

1050 –

It is said Berengarius preached the Gospel, and his followers who spread throughout Europe being nicknamed ‘Berengarians’. Berengarius was opposed to the baptism of infants which we learn from two witnesses, one Deodwinus, Bishop of Liege, who in 1035 who wrote to Henry 1 king of France complaining about Berengarius who was at that time, deacon of Angers and Bruno, who was the bishop. Both were said to have attempted a reformation of the doctrines of Rome, including the rejection of infant baptism and using the Bible as their only authority, rejecting Romish traditions.

The same complaints were repeated by Guitmund von Aversa (or Guitmond) a Roman Catholic writer in the 1080s who says that the ‘doctrines’ of these two men had spread throughout France, Germany, Italy and England, in town, village and city, nobility and gentry were ‘infected’.

It has been suggested over the years by the Roman church that Berengarius was a ‘heretic’ and various accusations made against him, but without the evidence. Evidence does suggest though that Berengarius did make an attempt to restore Bible teaching which would be felt for centuries to come.

1100 AD –

Pierre de Bruis was possibly a Priest who was certainly removed from office and began to preach in Dauphine and Provence, southern France. He seems to have been active from around 1100. His followers were known as Petrobusians, although they referred to themselves as Christians. They appealed for a return to the authority of the Scriptures and believers baptism quoting “Go out into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature: he that beliveth, and is baptised, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” also he is quoted as saying, “But we await a time suitable to faith, and baptise a man, after he is ready to recognise God and to believe in Him, we do not, as you charge us, rebaptise him, because the man who has not been washed with the baptism by which sins are washed away ought never to be called baptised”.

Pierre de Bruis referred to the churches which believed this as “Churches of Christ.”
He was burned alive in 1140 by people infuriated with his teaching.

1143 AD –

In 1143 a congregation of over 100 Christians was seized on the lower Rhein. Under torture they confessed that such congregations were everywhere but in concealment. Because there was no organised hierarchy (following the Biblical pattern) it was extremely difficult for the authorities to find congregations as each had its own Elders and Deacons.

1146 AD –

Everinus wrote to Bernard in 1146 complaining of a ‘sect’ who had rejected infant baptism in favour of Believers Baptism, they had formed a ‘church of Christ’ separate and apart from the Catholic church. Their Elders offered to debate with the Catholic Church their beliefs in light of the teaching of the Scriptures. This was rejected and instead they were burnt at the stake and the congregation was destroyed. Bernard was involved in oppression against ‘hereticks’ throughout Europe and many died under his instructions. Today he is revered as a saint in the Catholic church.

1166 AD –

During the years 1157 and 1166, first thirty and than eighty men and women came to Oxford where they established a congregation. <…> , they are interesting on several accounts:

1/ They were autonomous.

2/ They practised baptism by immersion for remission of sins.

4/ They were pre-Reformation 1517.

6/ They saw themselves as the true Church of Christ, not a denomination.

1390 AD –

But even as late as 1390 A.D. a New Testament church in Celtic Hill Cliff in Wales built a room for worship with a great basin for immersion of adults in baptism of confession of faith.
It is said the earliest evidence for the existence of Hill Cliffe is said to be found on a stone in the burial ground bearing the date 1357. Another stone has been found with the date 1414. Another has the date 1523, another 1599.

1400 AD –

In the 1300 and 1400s the 'heresy' which the authorities tried to destroy was Lollardy. Lollard was a derogatory name for men and women who simply wished to return to the simplicity of the scriptures. From records we know they taught the universal priesthood of believers, rejected infant baptism, rejected the Catholic Church and its traditions. In the 1500s as Lollardy died out, the Anabaptists appear, in exactly the same places where Lollardy was popular! Anabaptist too was a derisory name and from that persecuted group rose the churches of Christ who used that name “Church of Christ”, and denied being Anabaptists.

1428 AD –

In 1428, Abraham, a monk from the abbey at Colchester with Milburn White and John Wade, both Catholic priests were apprehended on a charge of heresy.
These three men were held guilty of rejecting transubstantiation, claiming that the elements used in the Lord’s Supper remained unchanged. <…> These men objected to this claiming that Christ was sacrificed but once, and not at each mass. They asserted that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial, not a sacrifice as it had become under Catholicism.
They taught

that all Christians are priests, upholding the universal priesthood of believers
That no man is bound to keep Lent and other Popish holy days.
That ‘priests’ may marry.
That pilgrimages are not found in the Scriptures.
That images and relics are not to be worshipped.
That prayer in all places is acceptable to God.
That saints are not to be prayed to.
That the ringing of bells only served to fill the purses of the priests, as in this time period the Catholic Church claimed the ringing of bells frightened away devils who lurked beside the beds of those who were dying.
They renounced the Catholic Church; teaching that the true Church is the congregation, the faithful of Christ, those that had been added by the Lord through baptism into His one Church, rejecting infant baptism.

1525 AD –

Dating from 1525, these Anabaptists started in opposition to the reformation, which was not going far enough to restore true Christianity. In reality these were continental Baptists of differing opinions, united in their opposition to both the Catholic and Protestant State churches, upholding the concept of autonomous congregations (Elders and Deacons) and in church discipline turning to the authority of the scriptures in all things.
These people stood for the restoration of the apostolic church as opposed to reformation and died by the thousand under both Protestant and Catholic countries alike.

1526 AD –

Tyndale’s N.T. which first appeared during 1526 was made directly from the Greek third edition of Erasmus, and was far superior to Wycliffes old Vulgate orientated Bible, this anyway was now out of date and difficult to find. Tyndale’s N.T. was mass printed and many of the Catholic doctrines could be seen to be totally without any Bible authority.
The established church was furious with his translation which they claimed was inaccurate (Thomas Moore) which certainly lead to his death.
Tyndale's translation of five Greek words enormously angered his enemies. In each case his translation was absolutely accurate to the Greek.

He translated the Greek word presbuteros as “elder,” whereas the church had always translated it as “priest”;
he translated agape as “love,” where the church had always had it as “charity”;
he translated ekklesia as “congregation,” whereas the church had had it as “church”; in that era people’s idea of Church was the all powerful Roman Catholic system, not the idea of the people of God, the congregation;
and he translated exomologeo as “acknowledge,” where the church used “confess.”

Tyndale translated the Greek word metanoeo as “repent.” Metanoeo is a classical and New Testament Greek word meaning “a change in the mind.” It means that sort of complete change that can come over people’s minds and change the direction of their lives. The Latin church had always translated that as paenitentiam agite, meaning “do penance.” Now, to do penance means paying money, for a wealthy land owner, building (funding) a new monastery or church building, so they didn’t want the New Testament to be saying “repent.” In fact, in the Catholic system far from repent, as long as the wealthy were paying into the coffers they could continue blissfully to sin. From the Catholic point of view Tyndale had totally mistranslated their words "do penance" and were absolutely horrified!

1529 –

Simon Fish's less well known tract, "The sumine of the holye scrypture" was an older German 1523 (or Dutch) tract used in Europe, written by by Henricus Bomelius, which Fish translated into English. It was printed in 1529/30. The tract taught that baptism came after hearing the gospel and is possibly one of the earliest tracts printed by the churches of Christ in Europe and England. The mode used was "plunged under the water" which dispels the idea that sprinkling was used for believers baptism in the sixteenth century. The first edition of which only one remains was printed abroad. Later editions of this popular tract were printed in London by Wyllyam Hill and remained in use for several decades.

1599 AD –

The Epworth and Crowle congregation who baptised believers by immersion for the remission of sins, started in 1597; they were associated with other congregations wearing the identity “church of Christ” and meeting each Sunday for the Lord's Supper.
The church Covenant, dated January 4, 1599, is recorded in these words:

"We, this church of Christ, meeting at Epworth, Crowle and West Butterwick, in the county of Lincolnshire, whose names are underwritten, give up ourselves to the Lord and one to another according to the will of God. We do promise and covenant in the presence of Christ, to walk together in the laws and ordinances of baptized believers according to the rules of the Gospel through Jesus Christ, so helping us. James Rayner, John Morton, Henry Helwise, William Brewster, William Bradford, elders of ye church".

1615 AD –

At first many ‘churches of Christ’ started from inside the Church of England. From 1615 these congregations started to leave the Church of England in some number. The first book published by the ‘churches of Christ’ in England was sold in 1618. Christians were leaving England for the Americas by the 1620s.
According to the historian Neal (died 1743) there were 54 ‘Anabaptist’ congregations in Britain in 1644. These congregations referred to themselves as Christians who were members of the ‘church or congregation of Christ’.

1644 AD –

From 1644 eight churches of Christ in London (seven English and one French) became increasingly Calvinistic in outlook and later became known as the Particular Baptists. They were the forerunners of today’s Calvinist Baptists although the term Baptist was not being used in this time period, neither had the Baptist theology been developed. They had started by priests disaffected with the Church of England, who then came into contact with some churches of Christ in London, thus the Baptist denomination was begun!.. This was the first major spilt within the church, quickly followed when some others left and formed the 'Quakers'.

1650 AD –

By the 1650s there are three distinctive groups baptising believers by immersion in England:

1/ The churches of Christ, which pre-existed Smith, Helwys and later Baptist denominations.
2/ The General Baptists and their Arminian theology.
3/ The Particular Baptists and their Calvinist theology, the forerunners of the Baptist (Calvinistic denominations).

1801 AD – The Cane Ridge Camp Meeting

QUESTION: When was Restoration of the Church completed?

QUESTION: When did “restoration” BEGIN?

There are many more examples than this, but for one example, look at 2 Chronicles 34:

The Book of the Law Found ! (King Josiah was 26.)

14 While they were bringing out the money that had been taken into the temple of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the LORD that had been given through Moses. 15 Hilkiah said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the LORD." He gave it to Shaphan. 16 Then Shaphan took the book to the king and reported to him: "Your officials are doing everything that has been committed to them. 17 They have paid out the money that was in the temple of the LORD and have entrusted it to the supervisors and workers." 18 Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king. 19 When the king heard the words of the Law, he tore his robes. 20 He gave these orders to Hilkiah, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Abdon son of Micah, ^[a] Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king's attendant: 21 "Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the remnant in Israel and Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the LORD's anger that is poured out on us because our fathers have not kept the word of the LORD; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written in this book."

Also see Galatians: Why was Paul so upset with them? Etc., etc., etc.

Today, of course, all that has changed. Having emasculated the vibrant fellowship meal of the early disciples and reduced it to little more than an emblematic ritual, we have already made a false start in our worship focus. In terms sheerly of time, perhaps the only part of our worship receiving less attention than the Lord's Supper is prayer. In some congregations, even announcements can come close to edging out the scant few minutes devoted to the Supper.

To radically restore New Testament worship, therefore, we must radically rethink the emphasis we put on the Supper. Certainly, it is good to sing and to pray and to edify one another in the Word. But the lesson of first-century worship is that, first and foremost, we meet together on the first day of the week to break bread. To remember why we sing, and pray, and edify. To remember the One who makes our life together possible. To remember the importance of our fellowship with one another in Christ. To remember that nothing else in all the world matters if Christ did not die for our sins.

Spontaneous Informality

What all of this suggests is that the primitive church had an intimacy, informality, and degree of mutual participation largely foreign to our own experience. The importance of this emerging contrast is not simply between our modern church buildings and houses, per se, but between what typically takes place in a church building as compared with what might take place more suitably in a home. Each has its own natural ambience. Each has its own constraints, dictated primarily by the sheer difference in size.

Just imagine for a moment a congregation of 200-300 members in one of our medium-sized church buildings. To think of this many people sharing a memorial meal together each first day of the week fairly boggles the mind. But not even that is the immediate concern. The more challenging question is, How can a congregation that size possibly have the kind of informal spontaneity which the early church apparently had during their gathered assemblies?

I realize that the nature of our Lord's Day gatherings has been altered significantly by the cessation of spiritual gifts such as tongues and prophecy. Still, one gets the sense that the primitive church would have known nothing of our spectator-oriented services where members of the congregation participate only minimally through singing and partaking of the emblems. Most of the time today we are a listening audience, sitting in an auditorium. We listen to announcements, prayers, sermons, and (if done at all) brief talks around the Lord's table. Hopefully, we are actively participating in thought, but mostly our role is passive. By contrast, we hear Paul saying to the church in Corinth, "When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction...," etc. (1 Corinthians 14:26).

The gathered assemblies of the primitive church appear to have been far more participatory than what we experience; and, almost of necessity, therefore, more spontaneous and informal. So much so, in fact, that Paul is careful to caution that "everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way" (1 Corinthians 14:40). Have we taken Paul's caution to an extreme? How much more extreme can it get than having a printed "order of worship" from which any deviation on the part of someone in the audience would be viewed with horror, and any spontaneous contribution of thought or song considered shockingly out of order?

It's all the difference between night and day. When is there ever time set aside in our assemblies, not for "scheduled" prayers, but for prayer? (That is, for prayers to be lifted up by whatever brother feels moved to do so.) What sermon today is followed by a time for questions and open discussion? When is the last time you heard comments being invited from among the brethren as the Lord's Supper was being observed? Or someone spontaneously leading (or singing) a hymn?

Worship and Evangelism In a Blender

Of all the differences between 21st-century worship and primitive Christian practice, surely the strangest innovation is the perfunctory call for a "response" at the end of every sermon, accompanied by the near-compulsory invitation song. Dare omit the "invitation," and you will quickly find yourself in the middle of protest and outrage by red-faced members who, themselves, may never once have invited a friend or neighbor to church in order to be taught the gospel. Nor does it seem to be important if, as a factual matter, not one non-believer happens to be present among the congregation. "There could always be a Christian who needs to confess his sins before the church," comes the steeled response.

The truth is, if you double-click on the "invitation-song" icon, what will appear on the screen is a church in which confusion reigns supreme about why we are gathered together on the Lord's Day. At one and the same time, we treat it as an occasion for Christians to remember Christ in edification and worship, but also -- somehow, some way -- for reaching out evangelistically to those who aren't yet saved. In the early church, there was no such confusion. Although teaching and preaching to the unconverted did take place from house to house, on the Lord's Day the already-converted church met together as brothers and sisters in the family of God for the purpose of sharing their common faith.

Restoration is the ongoing process of renewal intended to return something to its original condition.

Conservation is a protective process of preservation (protection) of what is complete and often in short supply.

Restoration demands a constant orientation to bring about the changes that return that which is being restored to its original condition. Consider the case of restoring an old automobile. To really restore it, it must be returned to showroom condition. Then imagine driving it to a show, where it can be displayed. When you arrive at the show, you must restore some more, like removing the bugs from the windows, polishing the paint and chrome, and repairing any road damage. If the car will be used, you will be continually restoring.

Conservation demands a constant orientation to prevent any changes from taking place, for any change would remove that which is being conserved from the state of conservation. When you have reached perfection, the only way to go is down. The conservationist would not take the restored automobile to the show, nor would he drive it. He would protect it from heat, light, moisture, air, and anything that would deteriorate it. He might even cast it in a huge block of Lucite so that it can’t be touched or harmed. It could also not be used.

In or about the 1940’s or 50’s the restoration movement evolved into a conservation movement. The predominant mindset of the 50’s and 60’s was that restoration had been completed and that the church of Christ was that restored church. Restoration as an ongoing movement was not taught to our young. What was taught was a preservation of the church of Christ in its 1940’s-1960’s form. The only restoration that was taught was the “history” of the Restoration Movement. A focus on history suggests completion. Have you ever been in a class about restoration methodology or about what needs yet to be restored?

When restoration becomes conservation, the movement stops moving and begins to crystallize. At that point, any deviation from what is being conserved is perceived as error. When true belief and fruition of the church have been gathered, systematized, authorized, and codified, any deviation from that codification will bring immediate and severe response from those obligated to conserve that which is being crystallized. In a conservation movement, traditions must be protected as well as scriptural truth, because perfection has been achieved and any deviation from that is viewed as apostasy.

Those involved in Restoration:

Love only the changes that bring them closer to the goal of restoration.
Expect the process (and thus the changes) to end only when perfection (completion) has been achieved.
Understand that perfection of restoration will never occur in the physical world.
Know what is currently being restored.
Know what is on the horizon that needs to yet be restored.

Those involved in Conservation:

Believe there is nothing new to be learned or developed.
Believe that the church need not change for it is completely restored.
Believe that doctrine need not change and one need not doctrinally grow (in truth) for all doctrine, in truth and practice, has been restored and must now be protected.
Believe that new study need not take place for there is no growth to achieve.
Believe that any new belief must be rejected for it is (by definition) wrong.
Want to have taught and preached to them what they already know. Any new information would fall outside the scope of what has been accepted.

Conservative: One who has ceased a search for truth because it has been found, identified, and is now in possession. That body of truth needs to be conserved.
Progressive: one who is interested in seeing change occur to that body of truth because of a rejection of its completeness and/or for the sake of change (“progress”).
Restorationist: One who is interested in seeing the ideals of scripture achieved, no matter what needs to be conserved and what needs to be changed.

Obstacles to the Conservation of “Truth” –

Questioning
Growth
Study
Change
Reason
Development

1. Baptism