The Mission of the Church, Part 2

BY EDWARD MALCOLM

3. DID PAUL TRAIN CONVERTS DIFFERENTLY TO THE WAY WE DO?

What did he teach his converts? It is clear, then, Paul did not set out merely to convert individuals, but to establish churches. Roland Allen points out, “The secret of success in this work lies in the beginning at the very beginning. It is the training of the first converts which sets the type for the future. If the first converts are taught to depend upon the missionary, if all work evangelistic, educational, social is concentrated in his hands, the infant community learns to rest passively upon the man from whom they receive their first insight into the Gospel. Their faith having no sphere for its growth and development lies dormant. A tradition very rapidly grows up that nothing can be done without the authority and guidance of the missionary, the people wait for him to move, and, the longer they do so, the more incapable they become of any independent action. Thus the leader is confirmed in the habit of gathering all authority into his own hands, and of despising the powers of his people, until he makes their inactivity an excuse for denying their capacity. The fatal mistake has been made of teaching the converts to rely upon the wrong source of strength. Instead of seeking it in the working of the Holy Spirit in themselves, they seek it in the missionary. They put him in the place of Christ, they depend upon him.”

This ruins the natural strength converts possess, forces any man with initiative to look outside the local church for opportunity, or suppress himself. Or put aside the spiritual desires implanted of God and go into secular employment because of a strong feeling of dissatisfaction with the subordinate position which is all that is open to him. It is of supreme importance that we discover, as far as we can, the method of training used by the Apostle.

First, are we establishing the C of E (C) or churches? For Paul this difficulty did not exist because he did not create it. “He set up no organisation intermediate between his preaching and the establishment of a fully organised indigenous church. It is interesting to speculate what would have happened if at the end of his first missionary journey, St. Paul had hastened back to Antioch to entreat for the assistance of two or three presbyters to supervise the growth of the churches in South Galatia, pleading that unless he could secure this help he would be unable to enter the open door which he saw before him.” The fact is that after preaching in a place for five or six months he left a church still needing guidance, but capable of growth and expansion. The question is, how could he so train his converts as to be able to leave them after so short a time with any security that they would be able to stand and grow? If we did this we would be accused of mad desertion. Yet we would leave them with the whole Bible in the vernacular, unlike Paul’s converts, who also had little acquaintance with the background of the Old Testament. In addition we leave converts a vast treasure of theological literature, then non-existent.

Moreover his supervision was minimal. He visited after eighteen months or more for short periods as and when he could. His helpers were sent to visit, not stay, to educate ignorant congregations incapable of maintaining their own life about fundamental truths. He was careful not to lose touch with new converts; to give them sorely needed visits and instruction, which they received. No doubt he was in constant communication with them by one means or another. But he did not remain in one church to exercise personal government, employing catechists as a stepping-stone to appointing a full ministry.

So we must consider what St. Paul taught his converts. Besides the elements contained in his preaching, he left a tradition to which he constantly refers. Christian practice and doctrine is set forth in some detail. Holy Communion involved a careful statement of the institution and practices to be observed. The resurrection involved the risen Lord’s appearances. Hence we may infer that the preached doctrines were reinforced by teachings on the facts and life of Christ upon which the doctrine rested. We simply do not know if this tradition was written down at this time.

Further the Old Testament was transferred from the Jewish people to whom it was originally given, to another people and made their foundation stone. Churches even today regard this as an inconvenient textbook to put in new converts’ hands. How could the Apostle teach this book in six months to the slaves and labourers, even if they could read when they came to him? Yet it is plainly used as his textbook in teaching them. And they quickly caught his method of interpreting it, so when the churches met, anyone who had seen a passage pointing to Messiah, or encouraging the hope that was in them, shared it. It was the source of all early Christian literature. How much better Paul’s method was than sending an occasional preacher to conduct a service and preach to the new church. Some listen, or quickly get the habit of not listening, whilst local prophets are kept silent. Thus Paul elicited more and more capacities in church members, instead of settling a minister like Timothy upon them.

He emphasised the two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and it is taken for granted in the letters he wrote that all were familiar with these. Thus Paul must have left the new churches with a simple system of Gospel teaching, two sacraments, a tradition of the main facts of the death and resurrection, and the Old Testament. No service forms were left except the Lord’s Prayer. We are not even certain if they had a written Gospel or any form of Creed. Yet it is precisely the simplicity and brevity which constituted strength. “By teaching the simplest elements in the simplest form to many, and by giving them the means by which they could for themselves gain further knowledge, by leaving them to meditate upon these few fundamental truths, and to teach one another what they could discover, St. Paul insured that his converts should really master the most important things.” You watch the zeal of a new Christian who has spiritual insight into one simple and necessary truth. You will be astonished by his clarity. He has mastered one truth, whilst our Christians have a smattering of the knowledge of all the faith. Paul’s method was simplicity and brevity at the beginning.

By doing this he ran grave risks, as the Judaistic controversy in Galatia, the moral and eucharistic scandals in Corinth witness. The Galatians were lightly armed against the Judaisers, yet St. Paul knew that circumcisers existed and were out for mischief. Does he repent of his dealings with the Galatians? Or express regrets at leaving them in haste and vulnerably untaught? He expresses horror at the Corinthian excesses amongst the converts. But when you read the instructions on Communion that he sent them by letter, he says it is what he taught them at the first. He was a great teacher, therefore the more necessary for him not to stay long. His quick departure gave scope to local talent. The churches had to depend upon their own resources.

The effect was that his converts became missionaries. There are no exhortations to missionary zeal in Paul’s epistles. Rather, From you sounded out the word of the Lord. Roland Allen quotes Dr. Friedlander, “While the Jews regarded the conversion of unbelievers as, at the most, a meritorious work, for the Christians the spread of the doctrine of salvation was the highest and most sacred duty.” This is not surprising when you consider they received the Spirit of Jesus, who came into the world to bring back lost souls to the Father. The reason for our failure is largely due to the fact that we quench that Spirit.

We must then consider what training for Baptism St. Paul gave Candidates. For baptism, as with the Philippian jailer, once Paul was satisfied that a spiritual change had happened, that there was some sign of repentance, some profession of faith, that sufficed. Whole households were baptised. But it does not follow that the great body of believers were baptised without careful instruction. Neither was baptism administered with thoughtless generality, or leaving the baptised to make their own way in Christ. Far less with long courses of instruction beforehand. The requirements were repentance and faith. The question is still, who decides if the candidate is honest in his confession? In some cases, Paul himself decided, but in Corinth he only baptised a few. The inference seems to be that he took the first decisions, but then practised the principle of mutual responsibility. Others might make mistakes, but a little mutual responsibility was worth a great deal of verbal teaching.

The same was applied to the admission of elders, both deacons and presbyters. Paul appointed elders (Acts 14:23), but emphasises ‘good report’, which must mean others’ opinions were valued and they took responsibility with him. Nor is there evidence that the congregations appointed elders by election alone. They had some say, but the appointment was by Paul or his representative, and very soon this was concentrated in the hands of a single local bishop. Further, they were appointed to the assembly to which they belonged, which maintained very close bonds between them and those to whom they ministered. What a difference it makes if the congregation feels a responsibility to those set over them, and those set over them feel a responsibility to the flock. Elders appointed were not young, but selected for integrity, sober, grave, of reputation. Yet nothing is said of a cleansed heart or an unfeigned faith. This is because we cannot judge other men’s spiritual state. Rather their inward state is judged by whether the man is moral and holds to the faithful word as he has been taught. Paul simply refused to set up a test of the candidate’s spiritual state before God. Note Paul did not go on returning again and again to ordain elders.

When St. Paul ordained younger men Timothy took them away with him to act as his assistants and ministers, that they might receive deeper training than they could at home. Thoroughness marked it all. There is little proof they were highly educated, knowing Hebrew or a foreign language, or even all the facts of Christ’s life or of Greek philosophy. Rather they had a limited general education and some acquaintance with the Greek Old Testament, together with basic doctrine and knowledge of how to administer the sacraments.

Finally St. Paul was not content with ordaining one elder to each church. He ordained several, thus not leaving all authority concentrated in the hands of one man. It ensured regular sacraments, and the church was not left weak because all its sustenance was drawn from a single individual. Responsibility was divided, many helped, all grew, one generation was able to pass on to the next naturally, and young men with gifts could exercise them. To select on grounds of educational qualifications in the first place is to silence the divinely gifted natural preacher and also the older men, its natural leaders.

4. PAUL’S METHOD OF DEALING WITH ORGANISED CHURCHES.

Authority. Churches established with elders, a ministry of both settled pastors and itinerant prophets, were no longer dependent upon the Apostle. He might go away or die, but they grew in grace and numbers, lights in the surrounding darkness of heathenism, gradually overcoming. In Galatia the churches were established in the faith and increased in number daily (Acts 16:5). Yet they were not independent of him, and on occasions he did not hesitate to assert his authority over those churches which he had founded. He claimed to have received this authority directly from the Lord (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10). He could write, So ordain I in all the churches, or If I come again I will not spare. These all occur in the Epistle to the Corinthians, in the face of the outrageous conduct of one individual. Yet he repudiates the very idea that he has ‘lordship over their faith’ (2 Cor. 1:24). He only exercises his God-given authority in extreme necessity. He prefers to plead rather than enforce obedience to rules. It is important we examine these carefully, says Allen, “because they give us a most valuable insight into the method of the Apostle and greatly help us to understand the secret of his success”. The areas he exercised his authority over are: purity, litigation, and the eating of meats offered to idols.

Fornication. The impurity and the easy-going attitude towards it of surrounding society greatly troubled the Jewish party within the Church. They argued that if the Law of Moses were not enforced, morals in the church would soon be dragged down. Events soon proved them right. Paul had only just ceased preaching in Thessalonica, and had been in constant communication with the church there, when he wrote his first epistle. Already adultery and fornication had to be given first place in the exhortations. In Corinth within two and a half years of leaving he writes to those who excelled in the gifts, yet it is obvious fornication was a common offence.

He does not appeal to the Law or to the Jerusalem decrees, or suggest rules excluding this offence be drawn up. He does not even threaten punishment. He exhorts and beseeches the Lord’s people to whom the Holy Spirit has been given to surrender themselves to the guidance of that Holy Spirit who has been given to them that they may be holy in body and soul. He says uncleanness necessarily offends against the Holy Spirit and incurs the wrath of God. See the same in 1 Thess. 4:1-8. Exhortations come late in the Epistle, but these take the most important place amongst them. Precisely the same language is used in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians 5:11. Like his Master, the Lord Jesus Christ, he inculcated principles and left his followers to apply them. Not leaving vague principles, but unmistakably accurately explaining them in his teaching. Again and again he expresses his firm conviction that the church knows the will of God and will surrender itself to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. His Gospel was not a Gospel of law, but of spirit.

It may be argued the Corinthians had a proud spirit and would not have tolerated autocratic interference from anyone, so Paul was forced to adopt pleading. No, for if it had been inculcated into them from the moment of conversion that they must obey church rules, they would never have thought any other way. It would have been the first duty of every convert. The reason Paul did not adopt this approach was that it was precisely what Paul did not believe, and therefore could not teach.

Litigation could have been dealt with by decreeing no convert should do it. Instead Paul argues it is unworthy of men who are to judge the world and angels, to drag their brethren before a heathen judge. It involves the whole church, and it would be better to suffer wrong than thus to publish the immorality of the church. Such do not inherit the kingdom of God. Is that the language of a legislator?

Eating things offered to idols is outlawed in the Jerusalem decrees. Corinthians not only ate but also attended feasts at idol temples, which often had associations with impurity. Why then not quote the decree as final? Instead he appeals to the highest Christian virtue in his readers. He contrasts knowledge with charity; that acts based on knowledge injure and mislead the weak, so are sinful. To appeal to law is to leave the people unconvinced and uneducated and teaches them the habit of unreasoning obedience, and they become those who delight in the minutia of laws. Thus their consciences remain sluggish, and instead of looking to the Holy Spirit they look to clergy as guides. Paul’s method would have left strife and division, but he reckons that better than sullen or unintelligent obedience to a rule, and an outward dead-calm peace.

Tertullian in his work de Idolatria shows that there was scarcely a trade or a business which Christians could engage in without being mixed up in idolatry of some sort. Slaves had no choice but attend idol feasts. Now suppose Paul had laid it down as a rule that no Christian could enter an idol temple. No convert could have continued in his or her trade as members of a heathen guild or society. Most of his converts who were artisans would have suffered great loss. They would then have been drawn back into the gulf of heathenism from which they had escaped. Physical separation from surrounding society is not to be encouraged, even though that gives immunity from certain temptations. For then their religion does not appear to belong to the people and the church does not grow.

Marriage and Divorce. Some might say on this Paul does lay down the law, that in 1 Corinthians 7 he writes with a tone of authority. Yet is that not written in answer to a plea for guidance? And is not Paul very careful to distinguish between the commands of the Lord and his own counsel? And is not the treatment inconclusive and incomplete? For instance he lays it down that widows may marry again but in the Lord, yet does not deal with this in the marriage of virgins. Even where he lays down a law by Christ’s authority (7:10), yet he issues instructions for a person acting contrary to that law he has just asserted (7:11). It seems he expresses what is desirable rather than legislates for the Church. That he is clear-cut but reasons his arguments as supporting his expression of opinion. This bears out all we have seen.

Discipline. He is unhesitating in the need for this in flagrant cases, and calls upon the conscience of the whole Church. Silence is a denial of the Church’s claim to be moral. Great crimes shock the whole congregation so none dares move. Not so little crimes, which get severely dealt with. Thus in Corinth he says the church has a duty to perform and he waits to see if they will perform it. In this case all excommunicate by a majority, the offender accepts the discipline, repents and is restored. All this is far from modern methods. A man may laugh at a bishop’s excommunication. After all, his conscience is by then deadened. But he cannot when the whole congregation, his neighbours, excommunicate him. Society around also knows the Church of God has expressed its disapproval. Paul stays away from Corinth until the church has realised and executed its duty, thus clearing itself of complicity in the offence. It is the body and its members, something Westerners find hard to grasp. Eastern life is more corporate. Paul as a last resort threatens to intervene, but only after he had tried by every method to make intervention unnecessary. “Thus he succeeds by failure where we often fail by succeeding.”

Unity. Paul set out not to teach a solitary religion of individualists, but to bring into being a Church and those who were in fellowship with that body. This is not the unity of convenience of those living in the same area, believing the same doctrine, who thought it would be convenient to form a society for mutual assistance. Rather by baptism they were members of one another, and to Christians everywhere by the communion of one Spirit, common rites and a common baptism. All suffered dangers and hardships and hopes together.

So also were the churches. They were not independent of their common founder, the great Apostle, nor of one another. Thus he constantly refers to the churches in any province as one. For the collection for Jerusalem, each province appointed its officer to act on behalf of the province. In this they recognised the Body existed before they came into it, but now they were each a part of that Body of Christ. This fact Paul uses especially over women speaking in the church or covering their heads (1 Cor. 14:36; 11:16). For Paul the Church was prior to the churches, and the Church established the churches.

They were established on the great trade routes and were in communication, travelling prophets spent their lives going from church to church. Visitors came frequently, hospitality was offered and accepted and it would seem they sent letters of commendation (2 Cor. 3:1). But their real unity lay in their spiritual unity, all being part of that one visible Body, so liable to attack from its enemies. Apostolic authority was recognised by all. And that included churches of which Paul was not the founder. Thus Paul takes it as foundational that unity exists. The need is not to get united, but to keep united. Allen says, “There was no such thing as spiritual unity expressed in outward separation… Outward opposition is a certain sign that spiritual unity does not exist. Spiritual unity in proportion to its perfection and fullness necessarily issues in common, united, harmonious expression, whether of word or act;”

Thus to mar the unity were sin; separation and schism express self-assertion. This is a sin against the Holy Ghost, involving the dividing of Christ. Unity might be broken, for the Jews in Jerusalem carefully maintained Jewish tradition, whilst the four provinces were almost entirely ignorant of that tradition. Take a Macedonian coming up to Jerusalem, where circumcision, the Jewish Sabbath, ritual slaughter and everyday life reflected the Law. Further many Jewish Christians barely tolerated the Gentile convert as a sort of proselyte. Going to church he found Jewish prayers, all modelled on Jewish patterns. The only real point in common was devotion to Jesus of Nazareth. Now reverse that for a Jewish Christian to arrive in Corinth. He would have been horrified and thought he was witnessing unbridled licence, with toleration of idol feasts and a strange Greek system of thought. He would have welcomed the party of Jews who were Christians who said the only answer was to enforce the Mosaic Law on the entire Church. To omit anything would simply be the thin end of the wedge. And even amongst the Greeks there was little real unity of thought, even on the resurrection which some held to be purely spiritual.

Unity might be maintained in one of two ways. Either to say that the mother church at Jerusalem was the pattern and all were to conform, or to say the very imperfect churches of the four provinces were part of the eternal Church, still incomplete, and both they and the Jerusalem Church was part of that Church of God, so each might have customs suited to their own needs, both Jerusalem and the Gentiles.

That is what Paul did.1) He refused to allow the universal application of particular precedents. Jewish customs were not to be imposed on the Four Provinces.2) He refused to have a central directive body set up, even though there had been precedent in the Jerusalem Council.3) He refused to establish rules for orthodoxy. Plenty have always wanted them, to define what a church may or may not do, to see what can be done without ceasing to be a part of the catholic Church. None can be found in Paul’s writings.4) He refused to allow the universal application of precedents. Each case is tried on its merits.

Thus he did not try for uniformity of practice, but a spiritual unity, expressed in outward unity. He maintained this by:1) Taking it for granted as a fact of Christian experience, that all suffer or rejoice together, welcome each other into their homes.2) Himself trying to maintain that unity, especially with Jerusalem.3) Encouraging mutual acts of help to one another.4) Encouraging constant communication between the various churches. 

Forasmuch as man, being not borne to ease and rest, but to labour and travail, is by corruption of nature through sin, so far degenerated and grown out of kind, that he taketh idleness to be no evil at all, but rather a commendable thing, seemly for those that be wealthy, and therefore is greedily embraced of most part of men, as agreeable to their sensual affection, and all labour and travail is diligently avoided, as a thing painful and repugnant to the pleasure of the flesh: It is necessary to be declared unto you, that by the ordinance of God, which he hath set in the nature of man, every one ought, in his lawful vocation and calling, to give himself to labour: and that idleness, being repugnant to the same ordinance, is a grievous sin, and also, for the great inconveniences and mischiefs which spring thereof, an intolerable evil: to the intent that when ye understand the same, ye may diligently flee from it, and on the other part earnestly apply yourselves, every man in his vocation, to honest labour and business, which as it is enjoined unto man by God’s appointment, so it wanteth not his manifold blessings and sundry benefits.

In what points the true ornaments of the Church or Temple of God do consist and stand, hath been declared in the two last Homilies, entreating of the right use of the Temple or house of God, and of the due reverence that all true Christian people are bound to give unto the same. The sum whereof is, that the Church or house of God, is a place appointed by the holy Scriptures, where the lively word of God ought to be read, taught, and heard, the Lords holy name called upon by public prayer, hearty thanks given to his Majesty for his infinite and unspeakable benefits bestowed upon us, his holy Sacraments duly and reverently ministered, and that therefore all that be godly indeed, ought both with diligence at times appointed, to repair together to the said Church, and there with all reverence to use and behave themselves before the Lord. And that the said Church thus godly used by the servants of the Lord, in the Lords true service, for the effectual presence of God’s grace, wherewith he doeth by his holy word and promises, endue his people there present and assembled, to the attainment, as well of commodities worldly, necessary for us, as also of all heavenly gifts, and life everlasting, is called by the word of God (as it is indeed) the Temple of the Lord, and the house of God, and that therefore the due reverence thereof, is stirred up in the hearts of the godly, by the consideration of these true ornaments of the said house of God, and not by any outward ceremonies or costly and glorious decking of the said house or Temple of the Lord, contrary to the which most manifest doctrine of the Scriptures, and contrary to the usage of the Primitive Church, which was most pure and incorrupt, and contrary to the sentences and judgements of the most ancient, learned and godly Doctors of the Church (as hereafter shall appear) the corruption of these latter days, hath brought into the Church infinite multitudes of images, and the same, with other parts of the Temple also, have decked with gold and silver, painted with colours, set them with stone and pearl, clothed them with silks and precious vestures, fancying untruly that to be the chief decking and adorning of the Temple or house of God, and that all people should be the more moved to the due reverence of the same, if all corners thereof were glorious, and glistering with gold and precious stones. Whereas indeed they by the said images, and such glorious decking of the Temple, have no thing at all profited such as were wise and of understanding: but have thereby greatly hurt the simple and unwise, occasioning them thereby to commit most horrible idolatry. And the covetous persons, by the same occasion, seeming to worship, and peradventure worshipping indeed, not only the images, but also the matter of them, gold and silver, as that vice is of all others in the Scriptures peculiarly called idolatry or worshipping of images. (Eph 5, Col 3) Against the which foul abuses and great enormities shall be alleged unto you: First, the authority of God’s holy word, as well out of the old Testament, as of the new. And secondly, the testimonies of the holy and ancient learned Fathers and Doctors, out of their own works and ancient histories Ecclesiastical, both that you may at once know their judgements, and withal understand what manner of ornaments were in the Temples in the Primitive Church in those times, which were most pure and sincere. Thirdly, the reasons and arguments made for the defence of images or idols, and the outrageous decking of Temples and Churches, with gold, silver, pearl, and precious stone, shall be confuted, and so this whole matter concluded. But lest any should take occasion by the way, of doubting by words or names, it is thought good here to note first of all, that although in common speech we use to call the likeness or similitude of men or other things images, and not idols: yet the Scriptures use the said two words (idols and images) indifferently for one thing always. They be words of divers tongues and sounds, but one in sense and signification in the Scriptures. The one is taken of the Greek word Ei¶dwlon; an Idol, and the other of the Latin word Imago, and Image, and so both used as English terms in the translating of Scriptures indifferently, according as the Septuagint have in their translation in Greek Ei¶dwla, and St. Jerome in his translation of the same places in Latin hath Simulachra, in English, Images. And in the new Testament, that which St. John calleth Ei¶dwlon (1 Jn 5), St. Ierome likewise translateth Simulachrum, as in all other like places of Scripture usually he doeth so translate. And Tertullian , a most ancient Doctor, and well learned in both the tongues, Greek and Latin, interpreting this place of St. John , Beware of Idols, that is to say (saith Tertullian ) of the images themselves: the Latin words which he useth, be Effigies and Imago, to say, an Image (Lib. de corona militis). And therefore it skilleth not, whether in this process wee use the one term or the other, or both together, seeing they both (though not in common English speech, yet in Scripture) signify one thing. And though some to blind men’s eyes, have heretofore craftily gone about to make them to be taken for words of divers signification in matters of Religion, and have therefore usually named the likeness or similitude of a thing set up amongst the Heathen in their Temples or other places to be worshipped, an Idol. But the like similitude with us, set up in the Church, the place of worshipping, they call an Image, as though these two words (Idol and Image) in Scripture, did differ in propriety and sense, which as is afore said) differ only in sound and language, and in meaning be in deed all one, specially in the Scriptures and matters of Religion. And our Images also have been, and be, and if they be publicly suffered in Churches and Temples, ever will be also worshipped, and so Idolatry committed to them, as in the last part of this Homily shall at large be declared and proved. Wherefore our Images in Tem ples and Churches, be in deed none other but Idols, as unto the which Idolatry hath been, is, and ever will be committed.

Almighty GOD, to the intent his most holy Name should be had in honour, and evermore be magnified of the people, commandeth that no man should take his Name vainly in his mouth, threatening punishment unto him that irreverently abuseth it by swearing, forswearing, andblasphemy. To the intent therefore that this commandment may be the better known and kept, it shall bee declared unto you, both how it is lawful for Christian people to swear, and also what peril and danger it is vainly to swear, or to be forsworn.

Unto a Christian man, there can be nothing either more necessary or profitable, than the knowledge of Holy Scripture; forasmuch as in it is contained God’s true word, setting forth his glory, and also man’s duty. And there is no truth nor doctrine, necessary for our justification and everlasting salvation, but that is, or may be, drawn out of that fountain and well of truth. Therefore, as many as be desirous to enter into the right and perfect way unto God, must apply their minds to know Holy Scripture; without the which, they can neither sufficiently known God and his will, neither their office and duty. And as drink is pleasant to them that be dry, and meat to them that be hungry; so is the reading, hearing, searching, and studying of Holy Scripture, to them that be desirous to know God, or themselves, and to do his will. And their stomachs only do loathe and abhor the heavenly knowledge and food of God’s word, that be so drowned in worldly vanities, that they neither saviour God, nor any godliness: for that is the cause why they desire such vanities, rather than the true knowledge of God. As they that are sick of an ague, whatsoever they eat and drink, though it be never so pleasant, yet it is as bitter to them as wormwood; not for the bitterness of the meat, but for the corrupt and bitter humour that is in their own tongue and mouth; even is the sweetness of God’s word bitter, not of itself, but only unto them that have their minds corrupted with long custom of sin and love of this world.

Of all things that be good to be taught unto Christian people, there is nothing more necessary to be spoken of, and daily called upon, then charity: as well for that all manner of works of righteousness be contained in it, as also that the decay thereof is the ruin or fall of the world, the banishment of virtue, and the cause of all vice. And for so much as almost every man, maketh and frameth to himself charity after his own appetite, and how detestable soever his life be, both unto God and man, yet he persuadeth himself still that he hath charity: therefore you shall hear now a true and plain description or setting forth of charity, not of men’s imagination, but of the very words and example of our Saviour Jesus Christ. In which description or setting forth, every man (as it were in a glass) may consider himself, and see plainly without error, whether he be in the true charity, or not.

Among all the creatures that God made in the beginning of the world most excellent and wonderful in their kind, there was none (as the Scripture beareth witness) to be compared almost in any point unto man, who as well in body and soul exceeded all other no less, then the Sun in brightness and light exceedeth every small and little star in the firmament. He was made according to the image and similitude of God, he was endued with all kind of heavenly gifts, he had no spot of uncleanness in him, he was found and perfect in all parts, both outwardly and inwardly, his reason was incorrupt, his understanding was pure and good, his will was obedient and godly, he was made altogether like unto God, in righteousness, in holiness, in wisdom, in truth, to be short in all kind of perfection.

In the last Sermon was declared unto you, what the lively and true faith of a Christian man is, that it causeth not a man to be idle, but to be occupied in bringing forth good works, as occasion serveth.

Of our going from God, the wise man saith, that pride was the first beginning: for by it mans heart was turned from God his maker. For pride (saith he) is the fountain of all sin: he that hath it, shall be full of cursings, and at the end it shall overthrow him. (Ecclus 10) And as by pride and sin we go from God, so shall God and all goodness with him go from us. And the Prophet Hosea doth plainly affirm (Hos 5), that they which go a way still from God by vicious living, and yet would go about to pacify him otherwise by sacrifice, and entertain him thereby, they labour in vain. For, notwithstanding all their sacrifice, yet he goeth still away from them. For so much (saith the Prophet) as they do not apply their minds to return to God, although they go about with whole flocks and herds to seek the Lord, yet they shall not find him: for he is gone away from them.

A Sermon of the Misery of all Mankind and of his Condemnation to Death Everlasting, by his own Sin.

Because all men be sinners and offenders against God, and breakers of his law and commandments, therefore can no man by his own acts, works, and deeds (seem they never so good) be justified, and made righteous before God: but every man of necessity is constrained to seek for another righteousness or justification, to be received at God’s own hands, that is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses, in such things as he hath offended. And this justification or righteousness, which we so receive of God’s mercy and Christ’s merits. embraced by faith, is taken, accepted and allowed of God, for our perfect and full justification.