The Sociology of Jesus Christ

“Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.”—Matthew 23:8-12

THE days of the Early Church, while yet the seed of the Gospel message was being scattered among men by the erstwhile disciples, now become apostles, of this strange new teaching of the last Prophet in Israel, were days of great activity. It is well to note the difference in the meaning of these two words “disciple” and “apostle.” A disciple is one who receives teaching and becomes by virtue of his instruction a follower and supporter of the teacher. An apostle, however, is one who has absorbed the teaching and, being in a state of conviction as to the worthiness of his cause, is commissioned by authority to labor in the spreading of the teaching.

Up to Pentecost, after the ascension of Christ, it may be properly said that the eleven left of the twelve chosen by Jesus Christ to contain the essence of his teaching—Judas having departed from the elect company by his own hand—were still disciples, followers, of the Master. At Pentecost, in the upper room in which they had gathered, the promise of Christ to send the Holy Spirit was fulfilled to them. Then they became in the true sense, apostles. Before his arrest and trial, Jesus had endeavored to explain to them the meaning of the things that were to happen to him as to why the people who had heard him gladly in his ministry were now turned against him by the malice of the priests, and as to the blessing that was his through his continued faithfulness to his Father’s desire. The condemnation which was to come upon Israel was rapidly approaching at the time he talked of these things with his disciples; for Israel, embodied in the leaders of religion of the day, had completed their plotting as to how his life was to be taken, had connived with Judas and completed the sordid bargain whereby the body of the Son of God was to be betrayed to them for the price of a slave. All that now remained was the opportunity to take him prisoner and that, Judas was to supply.

Jesus knew that these happenings and his own unresisting acquiescence in them would shake greatly the not yet secure faith of even these, his closest friends, and so he tried to prepare their minds for this last great test of their loyalty and fitness to carry on the work he had commenced. Yet he knew they understood but little of his teachings.

“I have much I would like to tell you,” Jesus concluded, “but you have more now than you can well comprehend. However, I will send to you the Holy Spirit of truth, which will make these things, and the many incomprehensible things you have heard me say and seen me do, clear to you, and you will be comforted in your grief at my going.

“The Holy Spirit,” Jesus continued, “will explain me and my mission to you, and once you understand it you will be my witnesses on the earth, for you have known me from the beginning of my ministry.”—John 14-16, paraphrase

So there were together in the room Peter, James, and John, Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, and James the son of Alphaeus, Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James. With them was a company of their friends, including Jesus’ mother, his natural brothers; and no doubt Mary and Martha, sisters of Lazarus whom Jesus had raised from the tomb, and many others.—Acts 1:13-15

It was a solemn and important occasion, this waiting for the fulfillment of the Master’s promise. Probably none of those present had any idea of just what to expect. They prayed and hoped, and prepared their minds as best they knew for the revelation which all earnestly expected, and then it happened!

Like a rushing mighty wind, so that none present might doubt this choosing by the Spirit of those whom God was honoring as his earthly emissaries, the Spirit appeared in visible form—not, be it noted, in human bodily form as though it were a person, an angel, such as had in times past appeared to men of Israel—but like divided tongues of fire, which descended upon them, and perhaps enveloped them in a radiance which none might mistake.

And they began—these ignorant fishermen and tax-gatherers, and not much less ignorant physicians and merchants—to talk in many languages, so that those gathered there, being people from many parts of the Roman Empire, heard each his own language spoken fluently. Naturally they were surprised and startled, but as usual there were the mockers who tried to explain it by accusing the Lord’s brethren of being intoxicated.

Peter, ever the first to stand forward and face opposition, refuted the suggestion, and assumed for the first time the active work of apostleship. He recited to them a prophecy of Joel concerning the foretold evidences of the ending of one dispensation and the beginning of a new, and then boldly took his stand for Christ and Christianity, setting the pattern for his future ministry and that of his brethren—a ministry in which he never faltered thereafter.

He reminded them of the fact that God had approved of Jesus as evidenced by the miracles Jesus had performed, but that they, wicked men, had slain the Messiah, the Christ, whom God had raised from the dead. He went on to deduce evidence of Jesus’ position as Son of the Most High from the words of their prophet and king, David.

Peter preached an eloquent sermon on that occasion, evidencing the heart-searching power of the Holy Spirit to influence the minds of even scoffers, for, when he stopped speaking, the listening crowd asked what they must do. He told them briefly of the call of God to become a part of the new nation he was gathering, a nation called by the name of Christ, to whom the promises of God had been transferred.

It was one of the most effective sermons of which we have any record in history, for three thousand professed repentance for the sins of Israel against Christ, and consecrated to this new faith, and were baptized. (Acts 2) So the apostles, who had been disciples, were launched upon their work of ministry, in which they were faithfully to continue until one by one the enemies of truth prevailed and they died for their faith even as had their Master.

Brethren they were in very fact; brethren welded together by a consuming love for one another and for their common Lord; brethren of the family of Christ, filled with his spirit, consumed with his passion; having one objective—union with the Jesus with whom they had walked, whose suffering and death they had witnessed, whose present glory they now began to understand.

Truly to their hearts the Comforter had come, and to their minds holy enlightenment which displaced every earthly desire. Now they understood Jesus’ mysterious references to a kingdom of heaven. Now they realized that the King’s Son had returned to his far country, and to that far country they were making their way, traveling the same pathway of suffering, to enter it through the same portal he had used—the death of the human being.

And as they traveled, they established outposts of the faith in every place where they could obtain a hearing. In fulfillment of the prophetic promises to Israel, they preached at first only to Jews, men of Israel, children of the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

In due time they turned to all men with the message of hope, Jew and Gentile alike. The family of Christ, the Christian Church, expanded even as they went farther and farther afield, and with its expansion new problems arose to trouble them.

In God’s due time he raised up another apostle. Saul of the city of Tarsus was of Jewish birth, of the strict religious sect of the Pharisees, and, as were some Jews of that day, a Roman citizen. His appointment to the apostleship of Christ was miraculous. (Acts 9) Zealous he had always been, and zealous he was in persecuting the infant church of Christ. He had officiated at the stoning to death of Stephen, a convert to Christianity, lending to the murder his official sanction as a Pharisee.

As evidence of his conversion, his Jewish name Saul was changed to Paul. Now his zeal, through God’s mercy, was to be exercised in the very field in which he had made such a mark as a persecutor; for Saul, the Jewish zealot, was to become Paul, the missionary, the apostle of Christ, who was to be such a wise directing genius in the establishment of the Christian faith among the Gentiles.

With masterly argument he approached the subject of the common application of the Gospel message, in his letter to those in Rome, whom he designates as “called to be saints.” He opens his letter with his confession of faith, “I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ.” (Rom. 1:16) But Paul never forgot, nor let his listeners and the readers of his letters forget, that he had once been a man of violence such as were some of them, but that, by the grace of God, he had been called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ.

He reminded them that for some time he had labored among the heathen, people who debased God to the level of the lowest things he had created; and worshiped him in the images of unclean beasts. He catalogued the filthiness of mind and body which such debasement of the conception of the Deity begets.—Romans 1

That there were some in Rome who professed Jesus Christ with their lips but practiced the corruption of the heathen may be inferred from his condemnation. But Paul reminded the church at Rome of God’s judgment of these things, that it was the only judgment to be feared, and that his judgment is impartial.

The Christian faith made certain definite demands upon those who professed it. Once having publicly accepted the responsibility of being a follower of Christ, then the requirements of the faith lay upon all equally. As one sowed, so one would reap. If one sought for glory, honor, and immortality, then eternal life would be granted; but to seek for those things implied perseverance in the only way by which they might be obtained. If, on the contrary, one refused to abide by the law of love and complete honesty of practice as well as profession, he would be demonstrating his unworthiness.

This law would apply equally to Jew and Gentile alike according to their profession. The Jew who refused Christ and still considered himself bound by the Law, was so bound. The Gentile, with no Law, was still condemned if his actions were not in harmony with the universal requirement that demanded that men, Gentile or otherwise, should dwell together in peace. But the Jews who still recognized the demands and requirements of their Law must keep it in all its exact requirements, not teaching one thing and doing another, for by such actions their God was made of disrepute in the eyes of the heathen.—Romans 2

Paul admitted that this general application of the Gospel call to Jew and Gentile alike seemed to reduce the former chosen people of God, Israel, to a position no different from that of nations which had never known God. But he explained that this is not so; for by the very fact that Israel had known God, and had been the custodian of his truth for many centuries, that nation had the best reason to seek salvation by this new way of Christ, now that the old way, through the keeping of the Law, was closed.

Faith in the sacrifice of Christ, which in itself fulfilled prophecy and superseded the former sacrifice of animals, is the way of life. Even Abraham was not justified in God’s eyes until he demonstrated his faith. Then he was counted righteous. So with David, who perceived no righteousness in works of the flesh, but only through forgiveness of sin. Christ is the One Paul emphasized, who has covered sin by his robe of righteousness for those who accept his vicarious sacrifice; and the value of this sacrifice will be for all the world, not for the Jew only. Thus there is a hope of salvation for all, Jew and Gentile alike, and the way of salvation is the way of faith. (Romans 3) “Without faith”—personal faith, undiluted faith—“it is impossible to please God.”—Heb. 11:6

This, then, was the core of the message of Paul and all the apostles in those early days of the church’s history. It has never ceased to be the basic doctrine of the Christian teaching. However, its application to men’s lives very soon became deflected after the apostles fell asleep, and evidences of its dilution by an admixture of error were observable even in those early days as indicated in the writings of the apostles.

The principal danger to the faith of the Early Church lay in the desire of men’s hearts to find an easier way to the kingdom than through a complete application of faith to their lives, for such complete faith implied complete sacrifice of all the claims of earth. Another danger was in the arrogance which filled the hearts of some, that because the bearing of this message of salvation had been committed to them, all men must be converted and that speedily. Any who resisted the new doctrines were to be counted enemies of the kingdom and dealt with accordingly.

Within the first two centuries of the Christian era, therefore, subtle errors had tainted the pure message which Christ had taught his disciples, error which had grown through the desire of men to run ahead of the Lord, to anticipate the outworking of his plan and to force the kingdom of heaven into existence before the due time. It was an easy step from that position to the assumption that into men’s hands had been committed the setting up of Christ’s kingdom in the earth, and thus the ground was broken for the sowing of seeds of diabolical’ error by the Enemy—error which has almost choked out the growth of the truth of Christ’s teachings.

With the idea in mind that the setting up of the kingdom was in men’s hands, and with the constant growth and spread of the Christian faith throughout the world-ruling Roman Empire of that day, there developed another danger within the church, and that was that there must be a supreme earthly authority as there was a supreme heavenly authority. The powers delegated by Christ to his disciples, and exercised by them as apostles, must still be held within the church. But who was to hold them?

The struggle for supremacy within the church went on for years. By the very nature of the times a program of organization had evolved, at first very loose in nature, but gradually tightening as the years went by. In the days of the apostles, and for some time afterward, the “ecclesias” or local church groups had each conducted its own affairs, electing, by the open vote of all the consecrated of God in the ecclesia, its elders, deacons, and such officers as it deemed necessary.

Many ecclesias had become virtually Christian communities, holding ecclesia property and funds in common. This system had come into existence, partly as a means of defense against hostile heathen and Jewish neighbors. Partly also because the strict interpretation of the Christian teaching that there was neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor freeman, but that all were equal in social position, being brethren in Christ. This created real problems in an age and in a world where the line of demarcation between the slave and the slave owner was so clearly fixed as to separate the two classes poles apart.

Such socialistic doctrine as Christ had taught was as revolutionary between the Christian Church and the Roman state, as it had formerly been between the Jew and the Gentile. In all ages, in all society, Christianity has always found itself in opposition to the accepted conditions of life in the world. In that day Christians, persecuted and killed as enemies of the state even as their Lord had been before them, in order to survive at all, had in many cases banded themselves together, pooled their resources, and formed separate communities in a hostile world.

Certain of these communities, in a further effort to escape persecution and to maintain a greater degree of purity within themselves, removed entirely from the haunts of men into deserts and waste places, and there, cut off from the world, lived their own lives according to their concepts of Christianity. Many individuals, more fanatic even than this, moved still farther afield, becoming hermits who lived in holes in the rocks in an endeavor to realize a supposedly closer union with heaven.

These actions were not dictated by the teachings of Christianity at all. They were a misapplication of what Christ had meant when he had said, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world,” and also the admonition, “to keep themselves unspotted from the world.” They were also based upon a misunderstanding of the many scores of other statements of Christ and the apostles which indicated that a true follower of Christ would have no part or lot in this world, but that he held citizenship in heaven.—John 17:16; James 1:27; Phil. 3:20, R.V.

It had never been part of the teaching of the Master, nor of his apostles, that Christians should endeavor to withdraw physically from the world, but rather that they should maintain their kinship with Christ despite worldly conditions. Only by that means could they receive the discipline and demonstrate the spirit of the Master under conditions approximating those he had endured during his earthly ministry.

Despite this disturbed state of human society, and in the face of growing errors both of doctrine and of conduct, the missionary spirit burned strongly in the hearts of the faithful, and itinerant preachers traversed the lengths and breadths of the Mediterranean littoral, sowing the seed of the Gospel message. North Africa from Ethiopia to Mauritania, Europe from Palestine to Spain, and even as far as Britain and Eire, received the word of Christ and his kingdom. Asia, or such part of it as lay within the Roman Empire, also received the witness. And the founding of “ecclesias” followed the steps of the Christian missionaries, until hundreds of such Christian communities had been founded throughout the domain of Rome.

The teachings of Jesus are, on the surface, simple. But beneath the simplicity of the words he spoke was a profound and disturbing truth—a truth which caused separation as well as unity. In the faith was unity, unity in the bonds of love toward a Savior but in the doctrine lay the seeds of separation.

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword,” Christ had said. So history has shown it to be; for the teachings of Jesus have divided husband from wife, father from son, mother from daughter. It separated the Jew from his temple, the heathen from his gods, the usurer from his profits, the soldier from his weapons, the philosophical scholar from his books and his school.

The Christian communities of that day had little other than word-of-mouth instructions in the mysteries of their faith. Few possessed even copies of the Old Testament, fewer still had the writings of the evangelists and the apostles. In some of the larger and wealthier churches, as at Rome and Alexandria, copies of the Pauline epistles and the Old Testament might be found.

It was not uncommon, therefore, for traveling evangelists, circulating among the ecclesias, themselves to become confused on matters of doctrine, and thus wittingly or unwittingly to teach error rather than truth. Leaders of communities also, on occasion, became overcome with a desire for prestige and power, and, obsessed by some interpretation of a doctrine which appealed to their own minds, sought to draw men after them in support of their particular way of salvation.

There was of necessity opposition on the part of the Christian elders to these teachers of error, opposition which often, and with increasing frequency, led to the presentation of the matter of controversy to the large churches where the written Word might be found, so that a decision according to Scripture might be rendered. In course of time this practice resulted in the “bishop” of the dominant churches assuming of right what had been a matter of privilege, and demanding allegiance of the smaller scattered ecclesias to their rulings on matters of faith and doctrine.

Thus grew up in power three leading churches—that of North Africa, that of Rome, and that of Byzantium, now called Istanbul. As a natural progression, if a decision rendered by the bishop of the Church of North Africa, for example, was disagreeable to the litigants, they would appeal the ruling to one or other of the remaining bishops, making confusion worse confounded.

As a result of the state of anarchy rapidly coming into being through this demand for authoritative decisions, there began a contest for supremacy by the bishops of the three major churches. The wrangling continued for years, but the Church at Rome, the seat of earthly power in the empire, enlisted the authority of the state in its support, and succeeded in acquiring for its bishops the title of “Pontifex Maximus”—the supreme ecclesiastical authority in the Christian Church. Within a short time of the acquisition of the title and the power, other titles and authorities were assumed, including that of Father of the Church, Papa, or Pope.

Thus, within a. comparatively short time of the death of Christ, his warning, “Be not ye called teacher, for One is your Master, Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man father upon the earth,” had been ignored, and an earthly being had assumed power and authority, position and title, which elevated him above all who bore the name of Christ, making himself equal in spiritual power with the Lord himself.—Matt. 23:8,9

This elevation on the part of the Bishop of Rome was not achieved easily, nor was it at any time acquiesced in by the whole body of the church. Division after division took place within the Christian communities, which fell into the fatal error of making decisions as to which “man” they would follow—the man at the head of the Roman Church, or the man at the head of the Eastern church, or the one in North Africa.

The arrogant claims to supremacy by the Bishop of Rome were based largely on the supposed statement of Christ that to the Apostle Peter had been delegated leadership in the church’s affairs; that he had spoken of him as a “Rock” on which the earthly church should be founded, and that Peter had founded the church in Rome, sealing its commanding position with the blood of his martyrdom there. With equal truth one might say that Paul also founded the Roman Church and established it in the blood of his martyrdom. Neander in his “History of the Christian Church,” concerning this claim by the Roman bishops, writes:

“This idea that there must be outward (visible) unity of the Christian Church—led to the thought that there should be some fixed point for the outward (visible) representation of this outward unity. This notion was at first very vague and undefined, but it was, nevertheless, the germ from which sprang the papal monarchy of the Middle Ages. Now it was, without doubt, no accidental circumstance that the Apostle Peter, rather than any other of the apostles, became the representative of this unity for the religious consciousness of the Western Church, for him especially, in virtue of his natural character, ennobled by the Holy Spirit, the inner meaning of church government had been bestowed. This Christ adopted for the development of the first (Christian) Community, when he named him the Man of Rock, but this he said, not to that Peter whom rather he called Satan (Matt. 16:23) but to the one who had uttered the mighty witness of him as the Son of God, and in so far as he had uttered this—that one to whom he could say ‘Blessed art thou, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father in heaven.’ This peculiar insight gained for this apostle the position he held in speaking and acting in the name of the first church. Yet with all this, pre-eminence and authority over the rest of the apostles was not conceded to him. Indeed the question of precedence of rank was never once to be raised among them. Every assumption of that kind was severely rebuked by him who came not to be ministered to, but to minister (Luke 22:24).”—Neander Church History, Vol, 1, Page 294

And again, quoting Neander from pages 295 and 296:

“From this … it must be clear that the idea of the primacy of St. Peter rested on nothing but a misunderstanding both of the position which had been assigned him in the progressive movement of the church, as also of the particular titles which were given to him.

“Although we admit as true the tradition that the Apostle Peter visited the Church at Rome, yet it is most certain that he was not the founder of that church, and never was at its head as bishop.”

The assumption of the superior powers of the bishop of the Roman church was put forward by Bishop Victor in A.D. 190, when he ex-communicated the churches of Asia Minor because they disputed with him about the time of celebrating Easter. In the middle of the third century A.D., Bishop Stephen adopted the same spirit of hierarchical arrogance when he visited the penalty of excommunication on the churches of Asia Minor and North Africa because they refused to acknowledge the pre-eminence of the traditions of the Roman Church as decisive in matters of doctrine and ecclesiastical law.

It must not be supposed that these dogmatic utterances carried much weight at the time. They were opposed and refuted by the affected congregations, who strictly maintained their right to govern themselves according to the recommendations of the Apostle Paul. They refused steadfastly to acknowledge that any ecclesia or church community, regardless of its size and power, had any right to pre-eminence among them. No bishop of any church should designate himself “episcopos episcoporum”—bishop of bishops.

With the growth of the church—both in number of ecclesias and in number of adherents—places of public meeting and instruction began to assume a degree of importance. Christ had talked to the multitudes on a hillside, or from a boat on the lake, and in the homes of his friends. The early ecciesias met most often in the homes of the members of the churches, and, during the years of the greatest persecution in Rome, in the catacombs—the great underground quarries over which Rome was built. But with the cessation of the persecution and the tacit if not actual approval of the state, the church could practice its religion openly.

To the heathen, accustomed to magnificent temples, filled with costly images, incense, pictures, and priests in gorgeous robes, the simple spiritual character of the Christian worship was a singular and striking phenomenon. To the Christians, each one of them believed he himself was a temple of the living God, a dwelling place for his Holy Spirit. Therefore where they met was immaterial. They never ascribed any degree of sanctity to the place of meeting. To them their God was ever present—to the man who prayed in secret in his own room, as to Paul in prison, or on the ship when he gave thanks for the food after the long fast.—Acts 27

To have ascribed any special sanctity to the place of meeting—to the house in which the meeting was held, or to the greatest public hall which might be secured for some special gathering—would, to the mind of these early exponents of the faith, have been idolatry. They believed that “where two or three of the consecrated were gathered together the Lord would be in their midst.” (Matt. 18:20) They, with his presence, hallowed any place in which they met. The place itself possessed no special or enduring holiness.

The use of images and pictures had no part in their worship. This purely heathen practice was anathema in the eyes of the Christian leaders as far as the third century. The observation of festivals was ignored as of heathen origin and, also, as a direct contravention of Paul’s strictures against recognizing special times and seasons.—Gal. 4:10,11

Throughout this struggle for supremacy in church government there were always some, few in numbers and with no power, who kept themselves unspotted from the worldly ambitious spirit which ruled in the majority of the hearts of the professed Christians. Some few, in every century, refused to “bow the knee to Baal,” suffering persecution and death for their convictions, rather than accept the twisted and distorted views presented to the people as Christian truth.—Rom. 11:4

Rome, flaunting its growing power, laid heavy tribute upon its adherents, took over great palaces of worship, many of which had formerly been heathen temples, and built others using those heathen places of worship as models. Adapting heathen rites and ceremonies into a church ritual, images, pictures, and gorgeous priestly robes were used to awe and impress the ignorant, and in matters of faith and doctrine emphasis was laid on the intercessory power of the priesthood and the need to have the church function as the keeper of the consciences of the faithful.

At a later date, as the pantheon of lesser gods, saints, multiplied, a chief saint was adopted, and thus Mariolatry entered the church picture to further confuse the worshiper and strengthen the power of Rome.

By the sixth century the power of the Roman Church was firmly established; the truth of God’s Word was held captive in the archives of Rome; superstition replaced faith; the various religious orders were becoming established throughout the world, holding tight rein on the surrounding communities, and Rome could say “I am rich, and increased with goods,” “I sit a queen.”—Rev. 3:17; 18:7

Adding a further blasphemy to all that had preceded it, the reigning Bishop of Rome declared himself to be Christ’s representative on earth, assumed the power to bind or loose at will the souls of the people, and later promulgated the idea that on all matters of faith and doctrine the pronouncements of the reigning pope were incontrovertible, and were in very fact unassailable truth to be accepted without question. Thereafter the church entered upon what it represents to be the thousand years of Christ’s reign on earth. Non-conforming Christians refer to this period as the Dark Ages.

Throughout that period the light of the simple truths as taught by Jesus Christ flickered and barely smoldered. For centuries it was so hidden as to be indiscernible, yet that it was not entirely extinguished was shown by the periodic but usually abortive attempts of reformers within the church to rescue the truth from oblivion—abortive until the trenchant utterances of Martin Luther, a priest of the Roman communion, set alight a fire the illumination of which never afterwards entirely died out.

This man struck at the heart of Roman power, defied the power of the pope, assailed the corruption which had all but consumed the church, cleansed to some degree the sanctuary, opened the eyes and minds of the people to new ideas—or more properly, to old ideas which had long remained dormant. It showed again the clear scriptural truth of salvation through the blood of Christ alone, and not through the self-assumed power of the church as such; that the just should live through faith in the ransom sacrifice of Christ; that no one could commit his conscience into the keeping of anyone or any organization, for no man could be a ransom for his brother; but that personal consecration and personal responsibility alone counted with God.

For two centuries thereafter reform movements swept through the so-called Christian world. Rome fought back with all her powers—state troops, the Holy (?) Inquisition, fiats of excommunication, religious courts with their sentences of torture and burning—but the time for the judging of the world by that Man whom God had appointed was drawing ever nearer, and the truths long hidden must again be made available to the honest hearted.

That which Jesus Christ had enjoined on his followers must come to pass—“Call no man father upon the earth; for One is your Father, which is in heaven.” Paul said, “God is not mocked.” (Gal. 4:7) Not forever can his Word be flouted and ignored. For centuries millions who called themselves Christians had done lip service to him by their adoration of a man who usurped the powers and the titles of God himself. That day was over.

In another period of transition, the error which had replaced the truth was to be exposed for what it was, and the shackles on men’s minds were to be struck off. Liberty to the captives of Rome came again in great measure, even as in the days of the apostles, when their preaching released believing Jews from the weight of the Law.

Some availed themselves of this liberty. However, very few in comparison to the many who, from fear, laziness, indifference, or other motive, preferred to stay in the worn-out and discredited Roman Church. But among the ranks of those who fled the wrath to come upon Babylon, were the founders of the Protestant churches, who walked the truth-lit pathway awhile, only to be overcome in their turn by many of the errors against which they had formerly protested.

Thus denomination after denomination came into being, in which were found some wheat suitable for garnering into the Lord’s storehouse, but they became rank with “tares.” These were the rapidly mounting scores of “bundles” into which the “tares” were to be gathered for destruction prior to the final ingathering of the last grains of wheat.—Matt. 13:30

—Contributed

| Home Page | Table of Contents |