Newspaper Page Text
HAS THE CHURCH OF GOD TO-DAY LOST
THE SPIRIT OF THE EARLY CHURCH?
There are many who are asking this ques
tion. It is not a matter of apostolic succes
sion, nor of church government so much. The
one question is, Have we lost the spirit that
moved and made the early Church a conquer
ing Church?
The first thirty-three years of the first cen
tury covered the life of Jesus. The remain
ing sixty-seven years of the century revealed
the most unparalleled victories of the gospel.
The beginnings were extremely feeble, a few
hundred men and women, hardly out of the
shackles of Judaism; few men of culture or
collegiate education, or wealth among them ;
only men and women of the deepest convic
tions. What did they accomplish with no
church buildings, no equipment, no colleges
and a scanty organization? They broke down
the walls of Phariseeism and proved for all
time that Judaism is the dead chrysalis from
which has come living Christianity. They
penetrated the mysteries of Egypt and punc
tured the occult sciences of the East. They
swept the height of Grecian philosophy and
supplanted it by the wisdom of God. They
marched into Roman barracks and even into
the golden house of the Caesars and saved
men from the horrible licentiousness of the
age.
No country was too distant, no climate too
severe, no cult too intricate. They went and
preached everywhere the gospel, God honoring
them with signs and wonders.
It was not a barbarous age. There was a
vast deal of learning and culture in the world,
but these men had something learning and
culture and material and political power could
not supply. It was done by men, not by the
sound of the wind, nor the voice of the angel.
Let us note some things about these men.
They were men of profound conviction of sin.
They knew its nature, its power, its curse and
its redemption. Sin to them was nothing to
joke over. They had "a burden." There is
the minor undertone sweeping through their
sermons and writings.
Peter never forgot the hour of his denial, and
begged to be crucified head down, as unworthy
even to be crucified as his Lord. Paul ever
speaks of himself as 4 4 injurious to the Church
o! God." Has not the Church lost this convic
tion largely? Is not church membership a
thing of common politeness and "the thing to
do"? Do not ministers often preach as if it
were a job to be gotten through with, and
people listen as a cross to be borne as best
they can?
These men had no manner of doubt as to
the reality of the divine and risen Lord. Jesus
was the Son of God. He was the supreme
Lord of their lives. They may have had poor
conceptions of His deity before the resurrec
tion, but when He held out those pierced hands
they cried like Thomas, "My Lord and my
God."
Peter faced an angry Sanhedrin and de
clared, "We can but speak the things that wo
have seen and heard." No apologies, no hazy
views, no denials, a simple and mighty faith.
They had no manner of doubt as to the truth
fulness and power of the gospel message. They
knew it was the power of God unto salvation.
There is something almost sublime in the
abandon of their faith. They built no churches.
They sowed the s?ed in faith that God would
see to the harvest.
They were men who lived in humble and
immediate reliance on the Holy Spirit. Time
and again they did things they never dreamed
of. They went where they did not want to
go. They faced obstacles that would have
daunted other men. The Holy Spirit was wit
nessing to them. Is it any wonder that Paul
could say the gospel had been preached in the
known world? Is it surprising that this new
religion, this illegal sect, confounded the wis
dom of the wise, and gave Christianity a stand
ing the world overt
Is there any way out of the way the Church
of God is drifting to-day? The cry, "Back to
Christ," is heard, and yet men do not tell us
what it means. We had better be going for
ward to Christ, but back to those sublime prin
ciples that made the early Christians veritable
thunderbolts of evangelistic power.
A. A. L.
Contributed
AUNT MATTY 'S RELIGION.
(The following article appeared in "The
Central Presbyterian" of January 6, 1875. It
is signed "Old Paths," and was from the pen
of the late Rev. J. L. Kirkpatrick, D. D., at
the time, we believe, of Washington and Lee
University. The original is in the possession
of Miss Virginia Richardson, of Charlotte Court
House, Va., a daughter of the "Col. R." men
tioned in the article, herself now an octogena
rian much honored and beloved by all who
remember "the old days in Charlotte." ? B. F.
B.)
Years ago Aunt Matty, a colored woman and
a slave, lived at Charlotte Court House, Ya.
Nominally she was the property of Col. R.,
but, in fact, at the time referred to, she was
the honored and tenderly cared-for charge of
Col. R., his wife and their children. She had
nursed Mrs. R. and her mother in their infancy,
and in her turn was receiving a bountiful re
turn for all her laithlul kindness.
Aunt Matty, as everybody called her, had
been a member of the church for many years,
but when I knew her she was very old, and
very much bent with rheumatism; so that she
could seldom attend public worship. For the
same reason, when she did attend, instead of
going into the gallery which was occupied by
those of her "color and condition," she took
a seat in the main row of pews immediately in
fiont of the pulpit and very near to it. In
those days, and it may be true at the present
time, the Presbyterian congregation at Char
lotte Court House was not surpassed by any
in the State in intelligence and social refine
ment: yet the most eligible seat in the house
of worship, with the cordial approbation of
all, was accorded to this humble slave. Her
excellent character and her long approved
piety secured for her this public tribute from
wealth, style and pride of position. One oc
casion of the kind I well remember. The cel
ebrated Daniel Baker was conducting a series
of meetings in the church. The interest
throughout the community was very great, and
on Sabbath the house was crowded in every
part ? the aisles and other vacant places being
filled with chairs. After the congregation had
settled down into a solemn quietness waiting
for the opening service, an unusual bustle and
a thumping sound were heard along one of
the aisles. It was Aunt Matty, with her long
staff, long and by no means light, hobbling
towards the front, and all in her pathway ris
ing up to make room for her. As she ap
proached the open space near the pulpit a gen
tleman, well known throughout the State for his
high social position, rose from a chair which
he had procured for himself with some trouble,
and gently forcing her into it, took a seat on
the steps of the pulpit. (Miss Richardson says
her mother told her that gentleman was John
Randolph, "of Roanoke.")
But this is only to introduce Aunt Matty
to the reader. My chief business is to tell of
her "religion" as she called it, or as some,
perhaps not more aptly, would style it, her
theology. Walking one summer afternoon
through the grove which surrounded her neat
and comfortable cabin, I saw her sitting in
front of her door enjoying the cool shade and
the fresh air. I stopped, as was my wont, for
a talk with her; or, rather, to hear her talk.
The one theme of her conversation was reli
gion ? the love of Christ and the blessedness
of heaven. I had occasion during the inter
view to remark: "Aunt Matty, you hold, I
suppose, to the doctrine of salvation by grace ? ' '
She raised her eyes, and with them both hands,
toward heaven, and with a voice trembling,
eloquently impassioned, replied in these exact
words (I can never forget the words or the
tone in which they were uttered) : ' 1 Salvation
by grace, through faith in the atoning blood
of my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ ? that's
my religion"!
Forty years are passed since I heard these
words, and often, often have I thought them
over. Meanwhile, I have spent months and
years in the study of theology, and have read
many works from the pens of the ablest di
vines, ancient and modern, treating of relv
gion and its great truths. Vet have I no
where lighted on a statement ? let me call it,
a definition, of the fundamental idea of the
gospel which has impressed me as so accurate
and so complete as this of Aunt Matty. One
of the most difficult and most valuable acqui
sitions derived from the study and exercise of
exegesis on which our students in the Theo
logical Seminary spend so much of their pre
cious time, is the knowledge of the import and
force of those little words which express the
relations of one term to another, and bind the
different parts of a sentence together. Ob
serve with what discriminating, scientific pro
priety she employed them in h<y definition.
Salvation by grace, through faith in the aton
ing blood of her Lord and Saviour.
Those who have never attempted to reduce
their knowledge to a system, especially if the
subject be one that involves a large number
of facts and principles, will readily allow that
the task demands the highest powers of the
human intellect ? those of abstraction and gen
eralization. They will allow also that the parts
of the system most difficult to be satisfactorily
adjusted are those which contain in a con
densed form great regulative enunciations, in
which everything that is genetic and essential
is included, whilst all that is derivative and
accidental is left out. Now analyze Aunt
Matty's definition of her "religion." Here
we have grace as the source of all ; or perhaps
it would be more correct to say, as the grand
essential characteristic of the entire scheme of
salvation. We have faith as the instrument?
the sole instrument. We have the object of
faith, namely, the Atonement, as the ground
or meritorious cause. We have the divinity of
Christ implied in the title Lord (for Aunt
Matty .meant nothing less by that word) and
in this His office as King. We have His priest
ly office asserted in the terms "atoning blood."
When she added, "That's my religion," I doubt
not she meant she had learned it from the
lips of Jesus, and those He had inspired to
teach the way of truth and righteousness. Thus
we have Christ as a Prophet. Lastly, we have
the appropriating act of faith in the posses
sive "my" ? "my Lord and Saviour."
Where did this illiterate slave get this defi
nition? ? this precise use of language? ? this
comprehensive view of the doctrines of the
gospel T In her younger days, and during the
season when her piety received its first dis
tinct impress, she sat under the ministry of
?John H. Rice, Drury Lacy and Matthew Lyle.