History Papers

Tiled Ceiling Murals at the Wartburg Castle, Eisenach, Germany

Separated by the Scriptures: Erasmus' and Luther's Opposing Perspectives of the Bible by William Sloos

Considered one of the more memorable exchanges in western intellectual history, the theological dispute between Luther and Erasmus over the issue of justification in 1524-7 has largely been viewed as the defining feature of their enduring antagonistic relationship.[1] Although they shared the same conviction that the Church was rife with immorality and simony and had strayed from the fundamental teachings of Scripture, Erasmus and Luther were never unified in their pursuit of ecclesiastical reform.[2] At the core of their dispute was an irreconcilable difference in their perspective of the biblical text.[3] As a humanist, trained in the literary and rhetorical traditions of antiquity, Erasmus believed that recovering the great truths of Scripture would unify Christians and draw them into the perfect union of the body of Christ. [4] By applying the moral principles of the biblical text, people can align themselves with the philosophia Christi and be motivated to love God and their neighbours.[5] Rejecting scholastic hermeneutics which crafted theology through polarizing and discordant disputations, Erasmus contended that the essential message of the Bible was capable of bringing peace and harmony to humankind.[6] Luther, on the other hand, through his diverse education and his intense personal experiences, came to believe that the Scriptures created division. Discovering the message of the biblical text for himself separated him from the rest of the Church and forced him to stand alone before his accusers. For Luther, the Bible was not a message of unity, but of discord and disruption; to grasp the meaning of the Scriptures was to be converted from error and set on a collision course with the apostate Church.[9] Although some in the evangelical camp had hoped that Erasmus and Luther would join forces in the emerging movement to reform the Church, their polemical understanding of the nature and purpose of the biblical text quickly shattered any optimism for unity. The following study will argue that the inability for Luther and Erasmus to cooperate with each other largely stemmed from their opposing views of the Bible. For Erasmus, properly understanding the Scriptures unified people, for Luther, it separated.

Erasmus’ View of Scripture

To understand Erasmus’ views of Scripture, it is necessary to explore his humanist thinking. Generally regarded as the most important exponent of humanist philosophy in the Renaissance, Erasmus was first exposed to humanism under the influence of Alexander Hegius, a former pupil of Rudolph Agricola and director of the renowned humanist school at Deventer in The Netherlands.[11] Under Hegius, Erasmus was immersed in the literary and rhetorical traditions of Greek and Roman antiquity and the Early Church Fathers. With an enthusiasm for the classics and thorough training in Greek and Latin, Erasmus devoted himself to recapturing the works of the ancient authors that had been passed on to him by Petrarch and earlier humanist writers.[13] Dedicated to the cause of what he called the bonae literae or “good letters,” Erasmus was persuaded that restoring ancient literature availed the scholarly community to a greater quantity of human knowledge for the moral and spiritual enrichment of society.[14] Moreover, Erasmus was also an ordained priest and considered himself a “Christian” humanist.[15] Along with his aspiration to restore classical literature was an earnest desire to return to the simple faith expounded by Christ and expressed in the early Church.[16] Recognizing that the Roman Church had wandered away from the central teachings of Scripture, re-establishing the sacred texts alongside the ancient classics became the primary focus of his lifelong restorationist initiatives.[17]

Desiring to mesh his humanistic ideals with the biblical text, the Bible became central to Erasmus’ conception of bonae literae as a way to unify Christians and draw them into perfect union with the body of Christ.[18] In 1503, Erasmus wrote Enchiridion Militis Christiani (Handbook on the Christian Soldier), in which he developed the revolutionary and hugely popular thesis that the Church could be peacefully reformed by a collective return to the essential teachings of Scripture.[19] Having personally encountered the ignorant superstitions, empty religious rites, arbitrary moral codes, and flagrant ecclesiastical venality that dominated Christendom through the Roman world, Erasmus was convinced that common people needed to be able to read and understand the undistorted message of the Word of God for themselves.[20] Regarded as a lay person’s guide to the Scriptures, the Enchiridion provided a simple, yet learned exposition of the essential teachings of Jesus that informed Christians about good and evil so they could choose to live in harmony with the requirements of the divine law.[21] Later, when Erasmus published the monumental and much celebrated Novum Instrumentum omne (Greek New Testament) in 1516, he wrote in the prologue that his ultimate wish was for the farmer to chant the Bible at his plough, the weaver at his loom, the traveller on his journey, and even for women to read the text. The same year that Luther posted his ninety-five theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, driving a wedge between himself and the Church, Erasmus produced the Paraphrases, which were considered digests of the New Testament designed for popular consumption, making the Word of God available to the humblest and least educated. [23] Rather than having pretentious and misinformed theologians informing Christians on how to think and behave, Erasmus wanted the Scriptures internalized by everyone for the purpose of instilling a Christ-centred devotion that would flow from an inner contemplation of the essential truths of Scripture. Borrowing a phrase from Rudolf Agricola, Erasmus’ vision for society was to embrace the philosophia Christi, the learned wisdom of Christ to stimulate pious living and civil harmony in the humanist tradition. External rituals, creeds, and dogmas mattered little; such things brought division and discord. For Erasmus, arguments and disputations over non-essential doctrinal issues had inflicted enough chaos and conflict in the history of the Church. The Scriptures were not intended to divide people, but motivate them towards Christ-likeness and guide them in the way of unity and peace.

According to O’Malley, to encourage people toward pious living, Erasmus drew from a variety of classical and patristic sources to present his message.[25] First, Erasmus possessed a deep appreciation for the art of oratory that defined classical antiquity. To convince others to embrace the philosophia Christi of the Scriptures, there was no need for tedious inquiries, dogmatic assertions, or theological disputations, but through eloquent persuasion the great truths of Scripture could be effectively communicated to inspire people towards godly thinking and action. Second, Erasmus contended that all literature related to good and holy living had a didactic purpose. Along with the Scriptures, acquiring knowledge of all the great truths was critical for the promotion of human harmony and civility. From this perspective, Erasmus blurred the lines between the sacred and profane sources and absorbed the biblical text into the grand collection of classical literature. Third, Erasmus’ theological hermeneutics assumed that the Scriptures contained deeper levels of meaning other than the literal. Transmitted from the Augustinian methodology of biblical interpretation, Erasmus freely embraced allegory as a means of constructing meaning enabling him to concentrate on the broader concepts of the text, rather than argue about contradictory and irreconcilable theological matters. By adopting these humanistic principles to his perspective of the Scriptures, Erasmus was able to present a thoroughly congruous exposition of the Bible that he hoped would unite Christians to the cause of Christ while avoiding doctrinal controversies and maintaining ecclesiastical calm.

Luther’s View of Scripture

Contrasting Erasmus’ view of Scripture as a way to unite Christians and draw them into fellowship with the philosophia Christi, Luther’s perspective of Scripture was one of division. Causing Luther to assume this segregative view of the biblical text was his diverse education and intense personal experiences. First, Luther’s education contained both scholastic and nominal philosophical thinking that contributed to his overall understanding of the Bible. According to O’Malley, Luther was exposed to the scholastic tradition early in his education and was accustomed to establishing clear distinctions, developing assertions, and engaging in dialectical reasoning.[26] Although Luther later fervidly rejected the via antiqua and its inadequate system of philological and logical analysis, Luther never purged himself of the need for doctrinal clarity. Whereas Erasmus could easily tolerate ambiguity in the biblical text, Luther was deeply uncomfortable with uncertainty and pursued firm theological positions. In addition, Oberman notes that when Luther entered the University in Erfurt in 1501, he was also introduced to nominalism which subordinated speculation to experience and taught him to freely question even the greatest thinkers of antiquity.{27] Years later, when Luther was summoned to defend his views of Scripture against the highly reputed scholastic authorities, his nominalist values enabled him to courageously question the long-standing doctrines and practices of the Church against the revealed Word of God. Combining an inherent scholastic disposition and nominal philosophical underpinnings, Luther’s vision of the Scriptures was greatly reoriented. He insisted on doctrinal clarity and did not shrink away from theological disputations to prove his biblical convictions; when challenged, he was able to boldly stand on the authority of God’s Word over and against the authority of the Church. In a letter addressed to the Emperor in 1521, Luther declared, “As I have offered myself thus I do now, excepting nothing save the Word of God, in which not only does man live, but which also the angels of God desire to see. As it is above all things it ought to be held free and unbound in all, as Paul teaches.”[28] For Luther, his diverse education equipped him to critically assess the significance of the Scriptures and render the biblical text “above all things,” a claim that ultimately and forcefully separated him from the Church.

Second, along with his education, Luther’s intense personal experiences also shaped his separative perspective of the Scriptures. According to Oberman, Luther became conscious of the polarizing nature of the Scriptures while studying at the university in Erfurt. At the time, the academic community was still in shock over the Church’s recent condemnation of Johannes of Wesel who was serving a lifelong prison sentence for insisting that Scripture alone was the final authority of faith.[29] Although Luther had not yet been called to the priesthood, this and other such stories circulating throughout the empire most likely contributed to his awareness of the power of the Scriptures to divide people.

When Luther entered the monastery in 1505, a pattern started emerging where Luther became increasing confronted with the divisive nature of the Scriptures. As a professor at the University of Wittenberg, his lectures on the Psalms prompted Luther to start viewing the Scriptures as having its own message, rather than a collection of various truths and proofs.[30] Although the notion that Scripture alone formed the foundation of theology was familiar among medieval scholars, recognizing it as something that was to be interpreted out of itself rather than through the heuristic devices of the Church was considered ground-breaking and carried with it certain risks. The risks of interpreting the message of the Scriptures on its own merit were described by Luther in a sermon in 1515 when he cautioned he listeners: “Whoever wants to read the Bible must make sure he is not wrong, for the Scriptures can easily be stretched and guided, but no one should guide them according to his emotions.”[31] Luther’s concern that the Scriptures could be wrongly interpreted indicated his awareness of the potential for the biblical text to cause division. Despite his own warnings however, his increasing insight into the central message of the Bible, apart from the doctrines and traditions of the Church, starting leading to debates over correct interpretations and meanings and eventually escalated into a direct challenge to the Church.

On October 31, 1517, the divisive nature of the Scriptures dramatically entered the public consciousness. After gathering together the main conclusions from his lectures on the Scriptures, Luther posted his ninety-five theses as a remonstration against the Tetzel scandal.[32] With the hope of sparking formal scholastic debate, Luther went to the extent of writing a protest letter to the Archbishop of Brandenburg declaring that “Christ has nowhere commanded Indulgences to be preached, but the Gospel.”[33] Persuaded that the immoral practices of the Church must cease and submit to the teachings of Scripture, Luther made his challenge a public matter and, with the help of the printing press, sparked a movement that was unable to be controlled by the existing hierarchies of the Church. According to O’Malley, through this experience, Luther became increasingly aware that the true teachings of the Word of God were being hindered because of the fixed policies of the Church.[34] While he affirmed that the true and invisible Church was the perfect body of Christ, Luther believed that the visible Roman Church had broken away from her Scriptural moorings and was morally and spiritually adrift. Moreover, the Church had been disconnected from the teachings of Scripture for so long that the existing leadership was no longer able to distinguish divine truth from ecclesiastical tradition. After suppressing the Word of God for centuries, when people exhorted the Church to return to the teachings of Scripture, they were quickly suppressed. Luther’s immense and fearsome discovery was that a return to the authority of biblical text was either going to bring his life to a sudden conclusion or was going to trigger a violent separation between the unbending ecclesiastical hierarchy and those who chose to follow the Scriptures as the only authority for faith and doctrine. Following his excommunication by Pope Leo X, Luther was summoned to the Diet of Worms to stand before Charles V in 1521. Requested to answer for his long list of books against the Papal Church, Luther’s courageous response highlights how the Scriptures had separated him from the Church. “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.”[36] For Luther, the Bible was not a message of unity, but of separation and disruption; to grasp the meaning of the Scriptures was to be converted from error and set against the Church. From these dramatic personal experiences, Luther’s perspective of Scriptures was radically reoriented; not only did Scripture stand alone (sola scriptura), but Luther stood alone with it (sto unus).

Erasmus and Luther in Conflict

Leading up to their famous theological dispute over the issue of justification in 1524-7, Erasmus’ and Luther’s divergent perspectives of the biblical text are demonstrated throughout their correspondences. An early hint of their forthcoming rivalry over their opposing views of Scripture is seen in a letter from Luther to Spalatin in 1516. After Erasmus published his Novum Instrumentum omne, Luther was one of the first theologians to receive a copy and immediately began studying the Greek text for use in his Romans lectures. Frustrated by Erasmus’ failure to support a critical point of Pauline teaching, Luther complains to Spalatin:

What displeases me in Erasmus, though a learned man, is that in interpreting the apostle on the righteousness of works, or of the law, or our own righteousness, as the apostle calls it, he understands only those ceremonial and figurative observances. Moreover, he will not have the apostle speak of original sin, in Romans, chapter V, though he admits that there is such a thing.[38]

A precursor to their future conflict over justification, Luther identifies a subtle, but very significant oversight in Erasmus’ commentary of Romans 5: he minimizes the doctrine of original sin and the total inability for humankind to be justified according to their good works. Since Erasmus promulgated a practical morality of loving God and humankind through obedience to the philosophia Christi, emphasizing the doctrine of original sin would only serve to discourage people from embracing his pious ideals. For Luther, his Romans study informed him that humanity was utterly lost and incapable of justification through good works; regeneration could only be accomplished through faith in the righteousness of Christ. As he was coming to grips with this ontological reality, Luther was also viewing the Catholic system of penance and the burgeoning indulgence racket as a direct contradiction to the teaching of justification from the book of Romans. In light of the Church’s fervent promotion of good works, Erasmus’ failure to address an essential biblical doctrine was a watershed moment for Luther. His perspective of the Scriptures was separating him from Erasmus’s theologically weak and inadequate commentary and fuelling his growing animosity towards the Church. Although Luther was still a year away from publicly challenging Rome on the issue of indulgences, the Scriptures were already creating division between Luther and Erasmus as well as Luther and the Church.

Shortly after Luther posted the ninety-five theses and opened the floodgates of theological controversy, Erasmus’ and Luther’s divergent perspectives on the Scriptures were becoming widely known throughout the empire. Worried that his vision of unifying Christians through the philosophia Christi was being threatened, Erasmus wrote to Luther in the spring of 1519, extolling the virtues of peace and counselling him against creating further division. “I try to keep neutral,” Erasmus told Luther, “so as to help the revival of learning as much as I can. And it seems to me that more is accomplished by this civil modesty then by impetuosity.” A few months later, Erasmus wrote the archbishop of Mainz to discuss the increasingly unsettled events surrounding Luther’s divisive behaviour. He informed the archbishop: “I urged him [Luther] in passing to publish no sedition, nothing derogatory to the Roman pontiff, nothing arrogant or vindictive, but to preach the gospel teaching in sincerity with all mildness.” Despite Erasmus’ abhorrence for some of the doctrines and practices of the Church, he believed there was no reason to stir up the people and cause division. Peaceful reformation could be accomplished when Christians start reading and applying the essential truths of Scripture and aligning themselves with the teaching of Christ. Luther however, was suspicious of Erasmus’ passivity and believed that he was more dedicated to humanism than the Word of God. Although he acknowledged Erasmus’ well-intentioned efforts for peace, Luther was convinced that calling for peace would merely sustain the suppression and prohibition of the Scriptures.[42] Refusing Erasmus’ counsel, Luther proceeded to oppose the shameful behaviours of the Church with the Word of God. From this point forward, Erasmus’ vision of the Scriptures as a way of unifying Christians was swallowed up by Luther’s expanding mission to install the Word of God as the singular authority for doctrine in the Church. For Luther, there would be no middle ground, no compromise, and no unity until the Church submitted to the Word of God.

Following his return from the Wartburg castle in 1522, Luther resumed his lectures on the Scriptures at the University of Wittenberg. Continuing to wield the sword of the Spirit to separate truth from falsehood, Luther wrote his colleague Œcolampadius to articulate his opinion of Erasmus’ biblical hermeneutics:

I greatly wish he [Erasmus] would stop commenting on the Holy Scriptures and writing his Paraphrases, for he is not equal to this task; he takes up the time of his readers to no purpose, and delays them in their study of the Scriptures…you ought rather to be glad if what you think about the Scriptures displeases him, for he is a man who neither can nor will have a right judgement about them, as almost all the world is now beginning to perceive.[43]

Vividly conscious of the difference between Erasmus’ view of the text and his own, Luther encouraged his colleague not to concern himself with the humanist’s theological leanings. Luther even suggests to Œcolampadius that contrasting Erasmus’ perspective of the Scriptures would be beneficial in gaining a correct understanding of biblical truth. Through Erasmus’ blurring of sacred and profane literature and his persistent emphasis on the ambiguity of the text, Luther contended that Erasmus is only preventing his readers from accessing the truth and is perpetuating the blind ignorance that had suffused the Church for centuries. For Luther, the message of the Scriptures was not to promote universal peace and harmony through the assimilation of a broad selection of Christological precepts, but rather to reveal the guilty state of humankind and the provision of grace through the atonement of Christ.[44] Rather than uniting humankind through practical morality, Luther views the Word of God as a dividing force, separating truth from falsehood, believers from non-believers, and authentic faith from the counterfeit religion.

Leading up to their now famous theological dispute, Erasmus’ growing dislike for Luther’s immoderate writings made it impossible for him to remain silent. Persuaded by Pope Leo X and the Roman curia to take up the pen against Luther, Erasmus chose the contentious issue of justification to attack Luther’s evangelical doctrines.[45] Following Erasmus’ sober and scholarly publication of De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio (Diatribe or Comparison on Free Will) in 1524, Luther counter-attacked a year later with his own more petulant treatise, De servo arbitrio (On the Bondage of the Will).[46]

Within their polemical debate, Erasmus’ and Luther’s irreconcilable differences in their perspectives of the biblical text quickly rose to the surface. Believing that the essential teachings of Scripture could unify Christians, Erasmus explained that it is not always wise to make theological assertions from the Scriptures; since the meaning of biblical text is often ambiguous, it would be better to withhold asserting doctrinal truth for the sake of Christian unity.[47] He states, “So far am I from delighting in ‘assertions’ that I would readily take refuge in the opinion of the Skeptics, wherever this is allowed by the inviolable authority of the Holy Scriptures and by the decrees of the Church.”[48] As a humanist, trained in the literary and rhetorical traditions of antiquity, Erasmus had little confidence in the intrinsic value of doctrine. Considering that the biblical text was largely unclear, making doctrinal assertions was superfluous and frequently created contention and division among Christians. Rather than concentrating on making doctrinal claims, Erasmus desired to focus on the moral precepts that lead to piety. For Erasmus, Christ came to teach humankind the way of love and by reading and applying the essentials of the gospel, Christians can be motivated to love God and their neighbours. Responding to Erasmus’ position, Luther writes:

To take no pleasure in assertions is not the mark of a Christian heart; indeed, one must delight in assertions to be a Christian at all. Now, lest we be misled by words, let me say here that by ‘assertion’ I mean staunchly holding your ground, stating your position, confessing it, defending it and persevering in it unvanquished…And I am talking about the assertion of what has been delivered to us from above in the Sacred Scriptures.[49]

Since Luther’s initial correspondence with Spalatin over Erasmus’ failure to assert the basic Christian doctrine of original sin a decade earlier, Luther had personally faced several confrontations over his belief in the supremacy of the Scriptures. Following the posting of his ninety-five theses in 1517, Luther defended the authority of the Scriptures at the Heidelberg disputation, faced questioning by Cardinal Cajetan, debated Eck in Leipzig, and refused to recant before the Emperor at the Diet of Worms. For Luther, standing up for the Scriptures became a defining feature of his evangelical faith. Unlike Erasmus, who viewed the Scriptures as too ambiguous for doctrinal assertions, Luther continued to stand his ground over the obvious claims in the biblical text, regardless of the conflicts that it created. For Luther, the Scriptures did not bring unity, they brought division. Despite of the consequences however, he was persuaded that the Word of God must continue to be proclaimed without compromise; if it separates people, so be it. 

Conclusion

Although Erasmus and Luther shared the conviction that the Church had strayed from the fundamental teachings of Scripture, they were never able to join forces in the emerging movement to reform the Church. At the centre of their dispute was an irreconcilable difference in their perspective of the biblical text. Erasmus, a humanist trained in the literary and rhetorical traditions of antiquity, believed that recovering the essential truths of Scripture could unify Christians and draw them into perfect fellowship with the body of Christ. Luther, on the other hand, through his diverse education and his intense personal experiences, came to believe that the Scriptures created division. Unlike Erasmus, discovering the message of the biblical text separated Luther from the rest of the Church and forced him to stand alone before his enemies. For him, the Scriptures did not inspire unity, but rather divided truth from falsehood, orthodoxy from heresy, and the disciples of Christ from the enemies of the cross. Erasmus’ and Luther’s divergent perspectives on the nature and purpose of the Scriptures were evident throughout their antagonist relationship but reached a climax when they clashed over the issue of justification. Considering the biblical text ambiguous, Erasmus refused to make doctrinal assertions for fear they might divide people and upset the stability of the Church. Opposing this view, Luther claimed that the Scriptures were clear and the apostate Church must be confronted with the truth regardless of the consequences. Despite the optimism of some in the evangelical camp who hoped that Erasmus and Luther would work together in the effort to reform the Church, their opposing views of the biblical text prevented any possible cooperation. For Erasmus, the Scriptures were intended to unify people; for Luther, the Scriptures separated people and set them against the abusive and corrupt Roman Church.

Bibliography: Cross, F. L. and E. A. Livingstone, eds. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Cummings, Brian. The Literary Culture of the Reformation. Oxford: Oxford University] Press, 2002. Dillenberger, John, ed. Martin Luther: Selections from His Writings. New York: Doubleday, 1962. Levi, Anthony. Renaissance and Reformation: The Intellectual Genius. London: Yale University Press, 2002. MacCulloch, Diarmaid. The Reformation: A History. New York: Penguin Group, 2003. Martin Luther’s Letters, “To Lord Albrecht, Archbishop of Magdeburg and Mayence, Mark-grave of Brandenburg From Martin Luther, October 31, 1517,” God Rules.Net.  http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/208luther2.htm (accessed Friday, April 18, 2008). McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Fourth Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Oberman, Heiko A. Luther: Man Between God and the Devil. London: Yale University Press, 1989. O’Malley, John, W. “Erasmus and Luther, Continuity and Discontinuity As Key to Their Conflict,” Sixteenth Century Journal 5:2 (1974): 47-65. Preus, Daniel, “Luther and Erasmus: Scholastic Humanism and the Reformation,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 46:2-3 (1982): 219-230. Rummel, Erika. The Erasmus Reader. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990. Rummel, Erika. Erasmus. London: Continuum, 2004. Smith, Preserved, ed. Luther’s Correspondence and other Contemporary Letters, Vol. 1. Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society, 1913. Smith, Preserved and Charles M. Jacobs, eds. Luther’s Correspondence and other Contemporary Letters. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society, 1918.

Healing in the Atonement: The Healing Ministry of John Alexander Dowie by William Sloos

Within the theologically informed and spiritually charged atmosphere of the second half of the nineteenth century, John Alexander Dowie emerged as one of the more colourful healing evangelists on the American religious landscape. At the zenith of his popularity, Dowie claimed over 250,000 followers world-wide with hundreds of people claiming healings at his meetings. Emphasizing the authority of Scripture and a personal faith in Jesus, Dowie taught that healing is sourced in the atonement of Christ and is assured for all repentant believers.[2] His soteriological perspective of healing began to appear when, as a young pastor in his native Australia, a dying woman was instantly healed in response to his prayers.[3] Resulting from this experience, Dowie made healing through the atoning work of Christ a central feature of his evangelistic ministry. Through his widely circulated weekly periodical, Leaves of Healing, Dowie declared that all sickness and disease originates in the demonic, but due to Christ’s defeat of Satan through his atoning sacrifice, healing is available to every person on the condition that they repent of their sins and exercise their faith.[4] Critical to preventing further afflictions and maintaining physical health was the avoidance of demonic influences such as medical treatment and pork products.[5] Despite Dowie’s extreme theology and increasing eccentricity later in life, his healing ministry experienced tremendous success and influenced many lives. This paper will demonstrate how Dowie’s healing ministry was soteriologically oriented and grounded in the atonement of Christ. Divided into two parts, the first part of the paper will be an overview of Dowie’s life and ministry and the second part of the paper will explore his theology of healing.

Dowie’s Life and Ministry

Born in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1847, John Alexander Dowie immigrated to Australia as an adolescent.[6] Sensing the call of God on his life, he returned to Scotland to study theology at the University of Edinburgh and then returned to Australia to commence his pastoral ministry with the Congregational church.[7] After a succession of pastorates, he quickly climbed the ecclesiastical ladder and eventually garnered a prestigious position as pastor of the Collegiate Church in Newton, a suburb of Sydney. While serving in the Newton parish, Dowie’s life was dramatically changed when he witnessed a miraculous healing in response to his prayers. This experience convinced Dowie that divine healing is not just provided, but is assured in the atonement of Christ, a conviction that would radically transform his theology and ignite a healing ministry that would gain international attention.[9]

According to Dowie’s own testimony in Leaves of Healing, his life-changing experience occurred when a devastating plague was sweeping over eastern Australia in 1875.[10] Within a few weeks, Dowie had officiated at over forty funerals, including many from his own congregation. Exhausted and wrestling with thoughts of how a loving God could allow such immense suffering to persist, Dowie was called to pray for a young lady of his parish who was near death. Entering the room where the ailing woman lay, Dowie met her doctor and discussed the seriousness of the woman’s condition. Resigned to her inevitable fate, the doctor said to Dowie, “Sir, are not God’s ways mysterious?”[11] Indignant at the doctor’s insinuation that the woman’s disease was given according to divine providence, Dowie became angry. “That is the devil’s work,” Dowie declared, “and it is time we called on Him Who came to destroy the work of the devil.”[12] Persuaded from his reading of Scripture that the benefits of the cross also include healing, Dowie laid his hands on the woman and boldly interceded for her recovery in the name of Jesus.[13] Opening her eyes, the woman reported feeling better; the fever had disappeared and she was completely healed. Through this experience, Dowie became convinced that Jesus is both Saviour and Healer through his atoning work on Calvary.

Following several very successful years pastoring his own church in Melbourne, Australia, Dowie received a vision from God calling him to carry his message of divine healing to every nation. Fused with soteriological language, Dowie recalled his vision: “I…had to carry the Cross of Christ from land to land, and bid a sin-stricken and disease-smitten world to see that the Christ Who died on Calvary had made atonement for sickness as well as for sin, and that with his stripes we are healed.”14] Eager to proclaim the healing power of Christ through the atonement, Dowie left Australia for San Francisco in 1888 and began holding healing crusades along the Pacific coast. Eager for greater exposure, Dowie travelled to Chicago to coincide with the 1893 World Exposition and opened a healing booth on the fair grounds where he exhorted thousands of spectators to repent, put their faith in Christ, and receive their healing.[16]

Settling in Chicago, Dowie organized his followers into the Christian Catholic Church, opened healing homes, started his publication, and began conducting services in the spacious Zion Tabernacle.[17] With his ministry increasing in numerical and financial strength, Dowie began attracting the attention of the local authorities. Concerned with the activities occurring in his healing homes, Dowie was charged with practicing medicine without a licence.[18] Although he was never convicted, these charges garnered national attention for Dowie, who took the unsolicited publicity to rail against what he called the “Hosts of Hell in Chicago,” including the apostate clergy, lying press, “medical butchers,” dispensers of “distilled damnation,” and anyone else that opposed his message.[19] Despite alienating many in the community, thousands of people from across the social spectrum flocked to Dowie’s meetings in the hope of experiencing healing in their bodies. Confident in the healing power of Christ, Dowie laid his hands on the sick and prayed for their recovery resulting in hundreds of testimonies of people claiming to be healed.[20]

Dowie’s expanding ministry was soon paralleled by his increasing apotheosis. On New Year’s Eve 1899, Dowie unveiled plans for the development of a utopian community that would function as a theocracy in which he would be the sole interpreter of God’s laws. The community, known as Zion City, located north of Chicago, eventually grew to over 8,000 inhabitants with plans to expand to 200,000.[22] During this time, Dowie became increasingly more eccentric. He consecrated himself as “Elijah the Restorer” and “the first apostle of the renewed end-times church.”[23] As Dowie prepared to establish other Zion cities around the world, he suffered a mild stroke which caused his hold on the vast ministry to unravel.[24] With his health failing, he faced mounting evidence of financial mismanagement, charges of marital infidelity, and rumours that he was suffering from mental delusions.{[25] Disgraced, Dowie died in 1907, largely ignored by the thousands who were once devoted to him.[26] Had he lived, there was speculation that he would have eventually claimed to be the reincarnation of the Messiah.[27]

Dowie’s Theology of Healing

First, sharing similar theological perspectives with other faith healers of his era, Dowie claimed that divine healing is assured in the atonement.[28] He stated, “We teach that the Atoning Sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ covers all kinds of sin and its consequences, of which disease is one.”[29] Emphasizing biblical texts that support his doctrine, especially Isaiah 53:5 which states, “with his stripes we are healed,” Dowie directly connected the act of healing to the efficacy of Christ’s death on the cross.[30] Through his death, Christ triumphed over Satan and conquered sin and sickness, making salvation and healing equally and universally available to all believers. To affirm his teachings, Dowie published countless testimonies that linked divine healing to the atonement. Testifying to his healing after Dowie prayed for him, one person remarked: “Christ atoned for all sickness and diseases as well as for all sin and sorrow. He took them on the cross.” Through this and other testimonies, Dowie consistently emphasized how Christ secured both salvation and healing through his atoning sacrifice on the cross.

Second, all sickness is sourced in the demonic. Rejecting the Reformed model that insisted that sickness was given according to divine providence and was to be endured with passive resignation, Dowie asserted that only Satan is the author of sickness and disease.{[32] “It cannot be for God’s glory that any of His children should be unhealed,” Dowie declared, “since God is never glorified in our sickness anymore than in our sin, for both sin and sickness are clearly Satan’s work.” [33] Considering sin and sickness as collaborative devices used by Satan to keep humanity in bondage, Dowie argued that Christ’s purpose for coming was to destroy the work of Satan and bring complete salvation and healing to sinful and suffering humanity. Leaving no room for the sovereignty of God or the natural laws of nature, Dowie drew battle lines between Satan and Christ; people either side with the devil and remain in their sins and sicknesses, or they come to Christ and receive salvation and healing through his atoning sacrifice.

Third, repentance and faith precedes and sustains healing. Embracing the broader soteriological implications of the atonement, Dowie articulated that individuals must first accept Christ as their Saviour before they accept him as their Healer. “I declare that until a man has quit his sins,” Dowie asserted, “he cannot be healed…I further declare that repentance toward God must be followed by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and that salvation is precedent to healing.”[34] Since faith was the means by which healing was apprehended, Dowie maintained that healing could never be received by a sinner; only those who were regenerated and exercised their faith were healed. Furthering his theological argument to an extreme degree, Dowie went on to claim that, “it is the privilege of all who believe in him [Christ] to enjoy perfect and perpetual bodily health.”[35] As implausible as this declaration is, it logically corresponds with Dowie’s soteriological perspective; since the atonement provides enduring salvation, it must also provide enduring health. On the other hand, when believers became sick, it is undeniable evidence that they have unconfessed sin or insufficient faith.[36]

Fourth, avoiding demonic influences such as medical treatment and pork products were critical to preventing further afflictions and maintaining physical health. Often railing against doctors and drugs, Dowie taught that seeking the help of a physician demonstrates a complete lack of faith in Christ. “You may take the Bible and search it from Genesis to Revelation,” Dowie stated, “and you can not bring me a passage where it is written: ‘If any of you is sick, let him call for a doctor.’”[37] For Dowie, divine healing was only effectual when sick people transfer their faith from human efforts to the victorious Christ. In addition to his distain for medical treatment, Dowie also demanded that all pork products must be avoided. Derived from the Gospel story where Jesus permitted the legion of demons to enter a herd of swine, Dowie contended that “devils have taken possession of pigs ever since.”[38] Since diseases were sourced in the demonic, eating pork subjected people to demonic influences and made them susceptible to physical afflictions.[39] Supporting his anti-pork convictions, Dowie reported, “there is not a case on record of an orthodox Jew having cancer, not one.”[40] Fearing that such destructive influences would undo what Christ had accomplished, ordering the avoidance of doctors, drugs, and pork products was Dowie’s way of preserving the benefits of Calvary for his followers.

Emerging from Dowie’s extreme healing theology is the awkward issue of unanswered prayer. What happens when repentant believers exercise their faith but do not receive their healing? Dowie’s response was unequivocal: “we say that each received according to his faith”[41] Essentially, Dowie argued that since healing has been provided through Christ’s atoning death, it is the individual’s proper exercise of faith that determines whether or not they receive their healing. “While many are healed instantaneously,” Dowie taught, “others, through lack of faith as lack of willingness to comply with God’s requirements concerning consecrated living, go away unhealed, leaving their bodies in the power of the destroyer.”[42] Placing the responsibility for healing solely on sick person, Dowie’s doctrine likely caused many people to feel anxiety and guilt over their inability to produce sufficient faith to be healed. An example of the harmful nature of Dowie’s doctrines surfaced when popular Methodist evangelist R. Kelso Carter contracted malarial fever.[43] Refusing medical treatment and acting only in faith, Carter went to Dowie in search of healing. After praying for the evangelist, Dowie expressed confidence that Kelso would be healed. However, Kelso’s physical condition remained unchanged and he subsequently fell into a deep depression. After six months, Kelso acquiesced and took medicine, fully recovering within a couple weeks. Reassessing Dowie’s views on divine healing, Kelso insisted that Dowie overemphasized the certainty of healing in the atonement. Admitting that God does heal, but not everyone or every time, Kelso and other evangelical leaders began to view divine healing more as a divine favour and only an ancillary rather than essential part of the gospel.

Conclusion

Apart from his grandiose claims and scandalous downfall, Dowie’s healing ministry left an indelible imprint on the American religious landscape of the late nineteenth century. Discovering the healing power of Christ while praying for a dying woman in his native Australia, Dowie linked the source of divine healing to the atonement of Christ. Convinced that Satan is the author of all sickness and disease, Dowie claimed that Christ’s death on the cross defeated the works of Satan and provided both salvation for sinners and healing for the sick. Through the confession of sin and the proper exercise of faith, healing is assured for all believers. Through the avoidance of demonic influences such as medical treatment and pork products, health is maintained. Although many reported being healed through his ministry, Dowie’s optimistic theology overemphasized the certainty of healing. Applying select Scriptures to support his doctrine, Dowie deduced that since healing was proffered to humanity through the atonement, receiving healing was completely dependent upon the faith of the supplicant. Those believers who were unable to manufacture sufficient faith and failed to receive their healing were regarded as spiritual failures. While appearing to accentuate the grace of God through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, Dowie’s extreme theology depicted God as a discriminatory benefactor who only distributes the benefits of the atonement according to the meritorious efforts of the suffering. Despite his unbalanced and harmful theology, Dowie’s unbreakable confidence in the healing power of Christ impacted countless lives and contributed to the emerging Pentecostal movement that continued to proclaim the message of divine healing through the atoning work of Christ.[44]

Bibliography: Burgess, Stanley M., ed., Van Der Maas, Eduard M., ass. ed. The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003. Cook, Philip Lee. “Zion City, Illinois: Twentieth Century Utopia.” PhD diss., University of Colorado, 1965. Curtis, Heather D. Faith in the Great Physician: Suffering and Divine Healing in American Culture, 1860-1900. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2007. Dowie, John Alexander, ed. Leaves of Healing. Vols. I-XVIII. Chicago: John Alexander Dowie, 1894-1902, Zion City: Zion Publishing House, 1903-1906. Faupel, D. William, “Theological Influences on the Teachings and Practices of John Alexander Dowie,” Pneuma 29:2 (2007): 226-253. Goff Jr., James R. and Grant Wacker, eds. Portraits of a Generation: Early Pentecostal Leaders. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 2002. Kydd, Ronald A. N. Healing Through the Centuries: Models for Understanding. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998. Lindsay, Gordon. John Alexander Dowie: The Life Story of Trials, Tragedies and Triumphs. Dallas: Christ for the Nations, Reprint 1980. Synan, Vinson. The Century of the Holy Spirit: 100 Years of Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal.  Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001. Synan, Vinson. The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century.  Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997. Wacker, Grant. Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Edward Irving: 19th Century Pioneer of the Pentecostal Movement by William Sloos

Introduction

Outside the main entrance of the Old Parish Church in the historic town of Annan, Scotland stands the imposing and distinguished statue of the Rev. Edward Irving (1792-1834).[1]{C}  Since his death and for the better part of the twentieth century, he was regarded as little more than an eccentric religious fanatic who was deposed from the ministry of the Church of Scotland for his heretical teachings.  However, Edward Irving was not just a religious troublemaker as some would suggest, but should be considered a courageous and uncompromising Pentecostal pioneer who believed and preached on the baptism of the Holy Spirit and allowed the gifts of the Holy Spirit to operate within his church.  In spite of the respected traditions of the Presbyterian faith and the determined threat of expulsion from the Presbytery, Irving would not compromise his Pentecostal convictions in light of the teachings of Scripture.

Edward Irving was a man who pursued an authentic faith in God, possessed extraordinary skills in the pulpit, and was committed to the apostolic restoration of the church.  From an early age, he demonstrated a desire for a personal relationship with God, unobstructed by the forms and traditions of the religious establishment.  Through his brilliant intelligence, boundless energy, and extraordinary oratory skills, he took a modest Presbyterian chapel in a forgotten corner of London, England, and transformed it into the city’s largest congregation, attracting thousands of people to his Sunday services.  Described as the “greatest orator of the age,” his thunderous and impassioned sermons exhorted people to repent from their sins and ready themselves for the coming judgment.[2]

Convinced that Christ was about to send a Pentecostal outpouring and restore the apostolic gifts to the church prior to his imminent return, Irving boldly encouraged people to seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  Accused by the Presbytery of allowing the gifts to function in his service, he stood on the evidence of the Scriptures and refused to recant.  When barred from his church, he started a new church based upon the five-fold apostolic ministry of the early church.  Tragically, Irving never personally received any charismatic gifts and was relegated to a subordinate position within this church; a victim of his own theology, he was eventually forgotten.  Despite Irving’s demise, he was a courageous and uncompromising pioneer of the Pentecostal movement, which seventy years later, was to spread around the world and become the third force of Christendom.

Irving’s Early Years

Edward was born as the second of three sons to Gavin and Mary Irving on August 4, 1792, in Annan, a town in south-west Scotland.[3]{C}  Edward’s father worked as a leather merchant and was able to provide a reasonably comfortable life for his wife and family, which also included five daughters.[4]{C}  Edward was stronger and taller than most boys his age and he was often outdoors, exploring the countryside and swimming in the ocean.  According to Scottish historian Margaret Oliphant, author of a biography of Irving written in 1862, though he was vivacious and adventuresome, he was also more mature and intellectual than his peers and was often more concerned with adult matters than the amusements of childhood.{C}[5]{C}  Edward was also an independent thinker and became interested and involved in religious and social activities uncommon to most school-aged children.[6]

Like most of the citizenry of Annan, Edward and his family regularly attended the local Presbyterian Church, otherwise known as The National Church of Scotland.  However, when Edward was ten or eleven years old, he occasionally attended the Church of the Seceders,{C}[7] a separatist congregation that assembled in an upstairs meetinghouse in Ecclefechan, a village about six miles away.  The Church of the Seceders was a group of pious believers who parted ways with the National Church because of its increasing doctrinal and moral laxity and religious tedium.  Over the previous twenty years, a number of “seceding” churches were established throughout Scotland, preserving a spiritual vitality and evangelical fervour among many people.  The pastor of the church Edward attended was the Rev. John Johnstone, a man of strong convictions who was committed to reaching “lost souls” for Christ.[8] The Church of the Seceders and the ministry of pastor Johnstone were to have a considerable influence on Edward and, by the time he was twelve years old, he acknowledged having a desire to become a minister.[9]

Edward’s parents instilled a high value of education in their son and when he was thirteen he left home to attend university in Edinburgh.[10]{C}  While in university, Edward distinguished himself as an outstanding student, especially proficient in mathematics, geography, Latin and chemistry.[11]{C}  He took great pleasure in reading and immersed himself in the adventures of his favourite books, such as John Milton’s Paradise Lost, Don Quixote, and Tales from the Arabian Nights.{C}[12]{C}  When Edward thought about his future as a minister, Arnold Dallimore notes that he did not want to be dull and boring like most ministers, but “he would be different- he would be powerful…like those of his favourite authors”.[13]{C}  Edward became active in the debating society and began cultivating his public speaking abilities, displaying a natural fluency of speech and a rather tenacious self-confidence.{C}[14]{C}  At the age of seventeen, Edward received his Master of Arts degree and shortly thereafter, commenced his divinity training part-time while teaching at a parish school in the town of Haddington, twenty miles south-east of Edinburgh, Scotland.  His enthusiasm and unusual teaching methods quickly earned him a reputation as a very skilful educator among his colleagues and students.[15]

After two years in Haddington, Edward was invited to become the head schoolmaster at a new school in the town of Kirkcaldy, Scotland.[16]{C}  There he befriended the Rev. John Martin, the local Presbyterian minister and was introduced to his daughter, Isabella.  Edward was fond of Isabella and after courting for several years they would eventually marry have a family together.[17]{C}  His interest in theology persisted and upon completion of his divinity courses, he received a probationary ministerial license from the Presbytery of Kirkcaldy.  Through his relationship with Rev. Martin, Irving was granted several preaching opportunities at the local parish, however many in the congregation disliked his sermons, considering them to be unusual, overly verbose, and difficult to follow.[18]{C}  According to Oliphant, some parishioners even described his preaching style as “thunder-strained” and “strangely different from the discourses of other orthodox young probationers”.{C}[19]{C}  Irving’s unusual preaching style was indeed different from the average preacher, and though considered too urbane for the humble flock in Kirkcaldy, his distinctive oratory talents would soon distinguish him as the most powerful preacher in the National Church of Scotland.

The Call to Ministry

Irving longed for the day when he would be able to employ his preaching skills and pastoral abilities on a permanent basis.  During this time, the National Church of Scotland operated under a “patronage system”[20] in which a minister could obtain a pastoral charge through the influence of certain important individuals.[21]{C}  Irving, as evidence of either his personal integrity or his stubborn pride, flatly refused to subject himself to such contemptible ecclesiastical politics and instead desired to be summoned to the pulpit solely based on his own merits and abilities.  However, after waiting several frustrating years without any invitations, he decided to resign his position as head schoolmaster and return to Edinburgh to explore his ministry opportunities.

In 1819, when Irving was twenty-six years old, he received a special invitation from the distinguished Rev. Dr. Thomas Chalmers to become his assistant at the renowned St. John’s Church in Glasgow, Scotland.[22]{C}  He enthusiastically accepted the offer and quickly immersed himself in the life of the parish and the responsibilities of pastoral ministry.  Though some parishioners felt he lacked conviction and tended to parade his knowledge in the pulpit, he excelled in pastoral visits, showing genuine concern for those less fortunate, visiting their homes, holding their sick babies, and even giving away most of his income to those suffering or in material need.{C}[23]{C}  However, the relationship between Irving and Chalmers, though always cordial, was never completely pleasing to either of them.  Chalmers was always concerned that Irving might do or say something extreme or embarrassing and Irving chaffed at the subordinate position.[24]{C}  Irving’s ambitions were greater than being an assistant pastor and he continued searching for opportunities to escape Chalmers’ restrictive grip.  As he waited, he completed his ministerial probation and in 1822, was ordained by the Annan Presbytery of The National Church of Scotland.[25]{C}  Soon after his ordination, Irving received invitations from two Presbyterian churches- one in Jamaica and one in New York City, requesting him to become their pastor.  As he was considering the offers, a third offer surfaced from a modest church in London, England that he would promptly accept, providing him the opportunity to his freely express himself and his radical convictions.[26]

Edward Goes to London

The Caledonian Chapel was a small and struggling outpost of the Kirk,[27] situated in a neglected and impoverished area of London, England.  The church had been without a pastor for over a year, the congregation was dwindling to around fifty people, and there were murmurings of closing the doors permanently.[28]{C}  On the second Sunday in July, 1822, the twenty-nine year old Rev. Edward Irving ascended the pulpit and preached his first sermon as the new minister of the Caledonian Chapel.{C}[29]{C}  To the parishioners, his arrival merely represented a remote chance of reviving the neglected church, but to Irving it was the opportunity of a lifetime.  He wrote to a friend concerning his new charge saying, “You can not conceive how happy I am here in the possession of my own thoughts, in the liberty of my own conduct, and in the favour of the Lord.”[30]{C}  Edward believed he had finally stepped into the role he was destined for, and with tremendous energy and enthusiasm he began delivering powerful and persuasive sermons that were brimming with emotion and authority.  Word spread about this forceful and dynamic young Scotch minister and soon those who had forgotten about the old chapel returned to their pew benches, bringing their friends and neighbours with them to see the latest attraction for themselves.

Within six months, the Caledonian Chapel, which seated about five hundred people, was filling to over a thousand.[31]{C}  Sunday after Sunday, people crammed into the church, filled every seat, stood in the aisles, overflowed into the vestibule, and spilled out into the streets all hoping to experience the unparalleled preaching of the Rev. Irving.  His ever-increasing popularity soon attracted London’s notables: lawyers, physicians, actors, artists, diplomats, “fine ladies”, and renowned people such as the English poet William Wordsworth and the Honourable George Canning, Britain’s foremost statesman and later prime minister.[32]{C}  People from all spheres of life were attracted to Irving’s rich and rolling orations, his consuming desire for the Lord, and his zealous condemnation of sin, likened to that of an Old Testament prophet.{C}[33]{C}  Renowned English essayist Charles Lamb lauded Irving as the “Boanerges of the Temple,” [34] referring to his thunderous and untamed nature from behind the pulpit.[35]{C}  True to his word, Irving was not dull and boring like all the other ministers, he was different- and he was taking London by storm.

As Irving’s popularity swelled throughout the metropolis, the elders of the Caledonian Chapel dusted off their plans for a new National Scotch Church better suited to accommodate the throngs of people and appeal to London’s upper class.  As the new gothic edifice was being erected, Irving also went to work, publishing a series of sermons in four volumes: For the Oracles of God, Four Orations, For Judgment to Come, and Argument in Nine Parts.[36]{C}  Matching his potent and mesmerising preaching style, his books centered upon the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and the imminent return of Christ.  They were purposely confrontational in style and language, railing against the religious stagnancy of the times and criticizing the spiritual blindness of the current generation of ministers.[37]{C}  With characteristic outspokenness, Irving also attacked the corruption in the government, bewailed the materialism spawned by the new industrial age, and denounced the evils of contemporary society.  He unashamedly declared that the church was living in the “last days”, the coming of the Lord was very near, and people everywhere need to repent from their sin and turn to God.  Though the judgmental nature of his books offended some people, he continued to attract the crowds and, by the time the church moved into their new landmark cathedral at Regent Square in 1827, they were the largest congregation in the capital.{C}[38]

The eschatological nature of Irving’s sermons and books struck a nerve with the current spiritual consciousness of the English population.  People frequently viewed the recent political events in light of Biblical prophecy and many were convinced they were living in the “end times”.  The American War of Independence in 1776 was considered the work of the spirit of lawlessness and the undermining of the God-given order of government.{C}[39]{C}  The French Revolution of 1789 hit closer to home and kept many people in a long-standing state of anxiety and fear.[40]{C}  The subsequent rise of Napoleon Bonaparte and his march across Europe caused many in England to consider him “devil-inspired” and were convinced he or his son would eventually prove to be the Antichrist.[41]{C}  Among the religious community, Oliphant states that the people earnestly believed that “the Lord was coming visibly to confound his enemies and vindicate his people!”[42]{C}  These eschatological sentiments created a hunger for practical theology as opposed to the abstract thought found in the established traditions of Protestantism.[43]{C}  People were no longer interested in deep searches for theological truth that was being dispensed by the state church; they were searching for straightforward answers to their current state of affairs.  It was under such finely tuned conditions that Irving would undertake a radically new understanding of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

The Albury Conferences

In this heightened spiritual atmosphere, Irving began participating in the Albury Conferences, an annual six day prophetic symposium where like-minded ministers and laymen gathered to discuss biblical prophecy and its literal and imminent fulfillment.{C}[44]{C}  Hosted by banker Henry Drummond, this select company of forty-nine men from a variety of social and religious backgrounds formed the so-called “school of the prophets”.[45]{C}  According to James E. Worsfold, during these meetings Irving noted that there was a strong sense of the presence of the Holy Spirit in their midst and likened their gatherings to the wise virgins of Matthew 25, who waited earnestly for the coming of the bridegroom.{C}[46]{C}  He also shared how, in one of the private quarters of the Albury house, he was “in the Spirit”, testifying that he met his Lord and Master “whom he would soon meet in the flesh”.{C}[47]{C}  The conferences would have a tremendous influence on Irving’s faith and doctrine, stirring within him the desire to seek the Lord for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as on the day of Pentecost.

One of the members of the conference, a man by the name of Hatley Frere, propounded a new eschatological scheme of prophetic interpretation according to a futuristic method conceived by Spanish Jesuit, Ribera.[48]{C}  He contended that most of the biblical prophecies had been fulfilled, the world was about to enter the period of greatest suffering, and the return of Christ was literally only a few years away.[49]{C}  While Frere aroused a picturesque outlook of the impending apocalyptic judgment, Irving, knowing that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was to occur before the return of Christ, began believing that the church was on the brink of a Pentecostal restoration.  He believed that the Holy Spirit was about to baptize his people again, empowering them with the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the authority of the apostles and prophets.[50]{C}  So convinced of this imminent Pentecostal restoration, he felt that it could be at any moment when his church would start to experience the “latter rain” as prophesied by Joel in the Old Testament.[51]

The influences of the Albury Conferences launched a theological revolution in Irving’s personal life and pastoral ministry at the Regent Square church.  On the verge of a new world of realized eschatology and pneumatology, Irving began preaching that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was near and would herald the return of Christ.  He began emphasizing the need for prayer and formed a group of like-minded parishioners who would meet together every Sunday morning prior to the public service to seek the Lord for this new Pentecostal outpouring.[52]{C}  Prayer, according to Irving, was the biblical model for accessing and receiving the supernatural power and apostolic gifts of the Holy Spirit.  According to P. E. Shaw, when describing the prayers of their early morning meetings, Irving stated, “We cried unto the Lord for apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, anointed of the Holy Ghost, the gift of Jesus, because we saw it written in God’s Word that these are the appointed ordinances for the edifying of the body of Jesus”.[53]{C}  For Irving, these meetings would become the primary vehicle for the practical implementation of his eschatological and pneumatological doctrines that would profoundly affect the course of his ministry at Regent Square.

The Nature of Christ

Shortly after inaugurating these prayer meetings, Irving started coming under fire for his unorthodox doctrine of the human nature of Christ.  In attempting to draw a link between the power Jesus possessed and the power available to all believers, Irving began teaching that Christ, in coming to earth, did not take the human nature possessed by Adam before the Fall, but after the Fall, and therefore had a corrupted human nature.[54]{C}  Since his human nature was corrupt, he was subject to the same evil tendencies and temptations as all humans and his life on earth was a constant battle against sin.  His ability to conquer sin and perform miracles derived from his baptism in the Holy Spirit, bestowed upon him by his father at his water baptism.[55]{C}  From that point on, the power of the Holy Spirit was so strong in his life that, even though his nature was sinful, his life remained sinless.[56]{C}  He thus reconciled fallen humanity back to God by living a sinless life, having defeated the power of sin through the power of the Holy Spirit.[57]

Consequently, Irving believed that the same Holy Spirit that empowered Christ to overcome sin and perform miracles was also available to every believer through the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  Thus, when a believer receives the baptism in the Holy Spirit, they possess the same power Christ possessed and, though they still have a fallen nature, they can have victory over sin and perform miracles.[58]{C}  Irving’s Christology united with his pneumatology became a theological launching point for his preaching on the baptism of the Holy Spirit.[59]{C}  According to Colin Gunton however, this controversial doctrine did not originate with Irving, but was mostly likely a modification of the theology of John Owen, a seventeenth century non-conformist theologian.{C}[60]{C}  Nevertheless, the majority of parishioners at Regent Square welcomed his teachings, even stirring some to begin seeking the baptism of the Holy Spirit.[61]{C}  However, Irving’s unorthodox views started raising some eyebrows with the theologically learned and would eventually capture the attention of the National Church.

On Sunday, October 28, 1827, the reverend Henry Cole, an Anglican vicar, theologian, and translator of Martin Luther’s The Bondage of Will (1823), arrived late for the service at the new cathedral at Regent Square.[62]{C}  Cole had heard the rumours about Irving’s peculiar views on the incarnation of Christ, but wished to attend the service to hear the matter for himself.  The little that Cole heard shocked him deeply and confirmed the reports that Irving, London’s most celebrated preacher, was proclaiming that the substance of Christ’s human nature was essentially sinful.  According to Cole, Irving had declared that Christ’s greatest accomplishment was his ability to overcome sin through the power of the Holy Spirit and thereby rendering the cross of little significance.[63]{C}  Cole confronted Irving after the service and, unsatisfied with the minister’s response, began publicly accusing him of teaching heresy.{C}[64]{C}  Irving chose not to respond to the accusations, hoping the controversy would die down, but to his surprise, suspicions over his “sinful substance” doctrine began to increase.

Preaching Tours of Scotland

In the spring of 1828, Irving, now thirty-six years old, left for a preaching tour of his native Scotland, burdened in his heart to warn his fellow Scots of the soon return of the Lord and the approaching judgment.{C}[65]{C}  While in the Gare Loch, a district along the west coast of Scotland, Irving met McLeod Campbell, a fellow minister of the Kirk who would become one of Irving’s closest friends.  Campbell was convinced that the “charismata”- the miraculous gifts possessed by the apostles, did not cease with their demise, but were abandoned by the church because of a lack of faith and coldness of heart.{C}[66]{C}  During Irving’s visit to Campbell’s church, a ministerial probationer by the name of A.J. Scott, preached a sermon on the charismatic gifts of 1 Corinthians 12.  In his message, he declared that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was an experience distinct from and subsequent to the baptism of repentance.[67]{C}  According to Worsfold, at the conclusion of the sermon, a number of people in the congregation began speaking in tongues and prophesying.{C}[68]{C}  Irving’s witness of these charismatic manifestations at Campbell’s church impressed him greatly and personally confirmed what he had been expounding from Scripture for some time.  Describing his meeting with Scott, Irving would later write, “As we went out and in together he used often to signify to me his conviction that the spiritual gifts ought still to be exercised in the church; that we are at liberty and indeed bound to pray for them”.[69]{C}  Shortly thereafter, Irving invited Scott to become his assistant in London; Scott accepted the position, but only on the condition that he would not be under any doctrinal requirements of any kind.[70]

Irving resumed his preaching tour through Scotland, proclaiming his eschatological and charismatic message to overcrowded churches and fellowship halls.  While in Kirkcaldy, where he served as head schoolmaster in his early twenties, his coming was so highly anticipated and the religious fervour so intense, that the local Presbyterian Church began to fill to a level beyond its load bearing capacity.  Before the start of the service, the galleries, crammed with enthusiastic worshippers, started to crack and tremble, then under the excess weight of the crowd they suddenly collapsed and crashed to the floor beneath, killing several people and injuring many others.[71]{C}  As Irving hurried to assist those in need, a voice in the crowd blamed him for the terrible calamity that was unfolding around them.  Irving, saddened by the tragedy and wounded by the accusation, believed that the wrath of God was already being poured out.[72]{C}  He would return to England, only to discover that the opinions of him had worsened in his absence and he was about to face another accusation, that of heresy by the London Presbytery.

Accused of Heresy

Hostility to Irving’s doctrine of “Christ’s sinful flesh” continued to grow throughout England and Scotland and an increasing number of ministers who opposed his teaching began to voice their opposition officially through the courts of the Church.[73]{C}  Irving’s friends, McLeod Campbell, A.J. Scott, and Hugh Maclean, a previous probationer under Irving, were already under increasing pressure by the Church of Scotland because of their allegiance to Irving’s controversial doctrine.  In an attempt to clarify his doctrinal position on the nature of Christ and protect him and his friends from further interrogation, Irving wrote his third book, The Opinions Circulating Concerning our Lord’s Human Nature, Tried by the Westminster Confession of Faith.[74]{C}  In his argument, he attempted to explain how his detractors were taking his teachings out of context and how the Westminster Confession of Faith[75] does not contradict his doctrine but could theologically accommodate his point of view.  Nevertheless, on November 30, 1830, the London Presbytery found Irving guilty of heresy and, according to Gordon Strachan, concluded their report saying that his doctrine contained “errors subversive to the great doctrines of Christianity, and that it was dangerous to the welfare of the Church of Christ.”[76]{C}  Irving however, was free on a technicality; his credentials belonged under the authority of The Church of Scotland and the London Presbytery had no legal jurisdiction to depose him from the pulpit.  Unbowed, he separated himself from the London Presbytery and continued to minister as an independent with the wholehearted support of the trustees of his church.  The Church of Scotland however was not amused and approved a motion to the effect that if Irving should appear in Scotland, they would take necessary action against him because of his heretical teachings.{C}[77]

Outbreaks of Glossolalia in Scotland

During the winter of 1830, while Irving was preoccupied with the defence of his Christology, events were unfolding on the west coast of Scotland that were to have a profound impact, not only on Irving’s position at Regent Square, but also on the entire Church of Scotland.  The wind of Pentecost was blowing and supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit began occurring among a number of people.  Worsfold states how a local medical doctor named Dr. Norton recorded how several people who were on their deathbeds experienced outbursts of the Holy Spirit, “both in way of utterance and apparent glory”.{C}[78]{C}  He also noted that at a number of house meetings, people reported having supernatural visitations and miraculous physical healings.[79]{C}  At a prayer meeting in Port Glasgow, he described how the Macdonald brothers received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues, even noting that they “continued to do so for the rest of their spiritual life”.{C}[80]{C}  According to an eyewitness account, the doctor also relayed that the prophetic message at these meetings was, “Send us apostles, send us apostles.”[81]

In the town of Fernicarry in the Gare Loch area of Scotland, where McLeod Campbell and A.J. Scott had been teaching on the Pentecostal baptism and the restoration of the charismatic gifts, a young woman by the name of Isabella Campbell (no relation to McLeod Campbell) captured the attention of the entire community.  Sick with tuberculosis and bedridden, she claimed that as she meditated on the things of God, she would have out-of-body experiences and spontaneous ecstatic moments in the Holy Spirit.[82]{C}  After she died, people from all over the area would make pilgrimages to the Campbell home to pay homage to Isabella.  In this spiritually heightened atmosphere, these people started waiting on Isabella’s sister Mary for additional spiritual experiences. Mary Campbell, who was grieving the death of her fiancé and also suffering from poor health, suddenly became the poster child for the Pentecostal outpouring in Scotland.  As she lay sick in her bed, an increasing number of people began surrounding her, anticipating some type of manifestation of the Holy Spirit.[83]{C}  A.J. Scott, now Irving’s assistant at Regent Square, would often travel to Fernicarry to visit with Mary, teaching her the distinction between salvation and the experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and advising her to study the book of Acts.  Scott had frequently taught this “two-stage” concept of the Christian life in McLeod Campbell’s church in Gare Loch and was convinced that this was the proper interpretation of Scripture.[84]{C}  Shortly thereafter, Mary wrote a letter to her pastor, Rev. Robert Story, who would later write an account of her life, telling him that she was experiencing a new level of intensity in her relationship with the Holy Spirit and that she is looking forward to receiving two of the apostolic gifts: the gift of tongues and the gift of prophecy.[85]

On Sunday evening March 28, 1930, Mary Campbell was miraculously healed and, as she rose from her deathbed, she suddenly broke out in an unknown language.[86]{C}  Witnessed by several friends, she filled the room with incomprehensible sounds, convinced it to be the baptism of the Holy Spirit like on the day of Pentecost.  Believing that tongues were actually known languages, she claimed that she was speaking the dialect of a people on a remote island in the South Seas- the Pelew Islands, a people of whom she had been reading;[87] she also claimed that she received the additional gift of “automatic writing”.[88]{C}  According to Oliphant, this homely young woman entered into the full-time career of a “prophetess and gifted person” and started giving demonstrations of her supernatural power before crowed assemblies.{C}[89]{C}  Word of Mary’s Pentecostal baptism spread rapidly, stirring the entire religious world of Scotland and England.  For the people of Gare Loch, Mary’s experience became undeniable evidence of the presence and power of God, confirming their faith and their belief that the sought after outpouring of Holy Spirit had finally arrived.[90]

Irving learned of Mary Campbell’s supernatural healing and baptism in the Holy Spirit through one of his deacons who had family members in the region who sent full and frequent reports.[91]{C}  The church at Regent Square hailed the news as the answer to months of fervent prayer, believing that Mary’s experience signalled the beginning of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the restoration of the apostolic gifts.  Irving however did not act upon the reports immediately, but sought to investigate the matter to see if it paralleled the events of the biblical Pentecost.{C}[92]{C}  These reports also captured the attention of the 1830 Albury Prophetic Conference and became an important item of agenda for the delegates.  During one of the sessions, the chairperson stood and addressed the conference saying, “It is our duty to pray for the revival of gifts manifest in the Primitive [Early] Church…and that a responsibility lies on us to enquire into the state of those gifts said to be now present in the West of Scotland”.[93]{C}  Nearly every devout Christian at the time pondered the reports of the spiritual manifestations including McLeod Campbell, who traveled to Fernicarry to investigate the matter for himself.  He believed, in order for the tongues to be of divine origin, they must first submit to the test of interpretation.  While attending a house meeting in the village, someone gave an utterance and another fellow interpreted the tongue saying, “Behold, He cometh- Jesus cometh”, confirming for Campbell that Pentecost had indeed arrived.[94]

Pentecost Spreads to Regent Square

Three years had passed since Irving first heard tongues and interpretation at McLeod Campbell’s church in Gare Loch.  What took place in relative obscurity in Gare Loch, was now occurring in prayer meetings all over Scotland.  The young Mary Campbell, now renown for her miraculous healing and ability to speak in tongues, had attracted a sizeable following and was helping to bring others “into the experience of tongues”.[95]{C}  After some time however, she decided that the best place for her to exercise her supernatural gifts was at the Regent Square church in London.[96]{C}  Meanwhile, in the autumn of 1830, the religious world of London was startled by a remarkable case of divine healing when Elizabeth Fancourt, the sickly daughter of a Church of England minister, was told her to “rise and walk” according to the power of Jesus Christ.[97]{C}  To Irving, Fancourt’s experience was evidence that the restoration of the apostolic gifts was not to be limited to Scotland but was also about to be poured out in England.  Subsequently, Irving directed all his studies to understanding the doctrine of the Holy Spirit with the earnest expectation that the gifts were about to descend upon his church.

After months of concentrated prayer, Irving’s expectations were realized on April 30, 1831, when one of the members of his church received the baptism in the Holy Spirit.[98]{C}  While hosting a prayer meeting in her home, Mrs. Cardale began speaking in tongues and prophesying in a composed and solemn manner.[99]{C}  According to those who witnessed the event, she spoke three distinct sentences in an unknown tongue and three in English, the latter being, “The Lord will speak to His people.  The Lord hasteneth His coming.  The Lord cometh”.{C}[100]{C}  Her experience, noted by Worsfold as the first recorded account of the manifestation of charismata on English soil, became the “tipping point”[101] for the revival at Regent Square.  What was once a rare occurrence in an obscure part of Scotland was now becoming a common and shared experience for many believers right in the heart of London- an experience that would soon overwhelm the esteemed cathedral at Regent Square.

 As the biblical Pentecost was breaking out in London, the early morning prayer meetings that Irving held at his church began increasing in numbers and intensity.  People reported that the presence and the power of the Holy Spirit was so strong that “hundreds were drawn from their beds, often through a yellow London fog, to wait on God”.[102]{C}  Some would seek the Lord for their own Pentecostal experience, while others would intercede for a greater outpouring of the Holy Spirit and a spiritual awakening in the traditional churches throughout Scotland and England.  Though the public worship services at Regent Square remained Presbyterian, the prayer meetings were thoroughly Pentecostal with a growing number of Irving’s members receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues.

During the revival, a small group of Spirit-filled believers started gaining a new level of importance within the church.  This special group, dubbed the six “gifted ones”, consisted of four women: Mrs. Cardale, her sister-in-law Miss Emily Cardale, Miss Hall, the popular Mary Campbell; and two men: Edward Taplin and Robert Baxter.{C}[103]{C}  Each person in the group had not only received the gift of tongues but also demonstrated the special ability to interpret tongues.  To Irving, their supernatural ability to interpret tongues certified them as “prophets” which confirmed for him that the office of prophet had been restored.  These prophets were given a prominent place to sit during the Sunday worship services and eventually became part of Irving’s inner circle.[104]

The Operation of the Gifts in the Service

Though Irving had not received any form of charismata himself, he believed that speaking in tongues, together with prophesying, were God-inspired ordinances specifically for the edification of the church and should be functioning in the public worship services.  Yet Irving hesitated, knowing that if the gifts were allowed to operate publicly, it would create a level of confusion within the church body.  While he contemplated these matters, there were several outbursts of prophecy at a morning prayer meeting which declared that he was “quenching the Spirit” by not allowing the gifts to be exercised in public.[105]{C}  One particular prophecy aimed directly at Irving declared, “It belongs to you to open the door- you have the power of the keys- it is you that are restraining and hindering it.”{C}[106]{C}  Irving felt the sting of divine correction and the following Sunday, standing before two thousand parishioners, he boldly declared, “Should not the Lord have His own way in His own House?”[107]{C}  He continued saying, “I cannot be a party in hindering, that which I believe to be the voice of the Holy Ghost from being heard in the church” and, pointing to the six prophets in the front pew, stated, “everyone who has received the gift of the Holy Ghost, and is moved by the Holy Ghost, shall have liberty to speak.”[108]{C}  Thus in a single, sweeping announcement, Irving threw open the door to the public operation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.  However, he quickly discovered that the door would not only be impossible to shut, but would eventually divide his assembly and raise the ire of the General Assembly of the National Church of Scotland.

Irving’s surprise announcement shocked his trustees and the Presbyterian faithful of the Regent Square church.[109]{C}  However Irving was committed to his decision and, during the evening service of the same Sunday, Edward O. Taplin, one of the prophets, stood and gave a prophetic utterance, the first of many to occur at the Regent Square Church. {C}[110]{C}  What started as a trickle soon became an unstoppable torrent of prophetic utterances that Irving had little control over.  As the gifts continued to be delivered week after week, confusion ensued and parishioners began taking sides; by September 1831, Irving’s church was completely divided.  One faction comprised of the staid Presbyterians whose concept of a Sunday service was one of order and reverent worship of God, where any public disturbance was considered abhorrent and even blasphemous.  The other side consisted of people who had been drawn by Irving’s Pentecostal preaching or had experienced Pentecost for themselves and cared little for the solemnities of Presbyterian worship and more for the presence of the Holy Spirit.{C}[111]{C}  When Irving attempted to calm the seas of discord and minimize the operation of the gifts, one of the prophets pulled him aside and told him that his fear of offending the Presbyterians was restraining the Spirit of God.[112]{C}  Irving was caught between two worlds: Pentecostal power and Presbyterian tradition- and his ability to keep the church together was evaporating week after week.

As the prophets continued to speak out in the services without restriction, rumours of these peculiar occurrences spread rapidly throughout the city, which quickly caught the attention of the city’s newspapers.  Revelling in the sensation, the London Times contemptuously depicted the Pentecostal manifestations at the Regent Square cathedral as scandalous and worthy of investigation by the authorities stating:

his [Irving’s] millenarianism and apocalyptic imagery may offend the judgment but did not offend the nerves.  But have we the same excuse for the recent exhibitions with which the metropolis has been scandalized?  Are we to listen to the screaming of hysterical women and the ravings of frantic men?  Is bawling to be added to absurdity and the disturber of a congregation to escape the police and treadmill{C}[113] because the Person who occupies the pulpit vouches for their inspiration?[114]

The Times also editorialized that it was time to remove Irving from the pulpit, criticizing him for his religious excesses and maverick behaviour.  As the negative press mounted, the conditions at the church worsened and the trustees of Regent Square, who had once defended their pastor over his Christological doctrines, were now distancing themselves from him and his band of Pentecostal followers.

The events at the Regent Square Church reached a boiling point on November 13, 1831 when the gift of tongues and prophecy echoed throughout the cathedral in both the morning and evening services.[115]{C}  In a frenzied display of charismata, people were heard shrieking out, painfully groaning, or filling the sanctuary with loud incoherent babbling.[116]{C}  The trustees of the church reached the end of their patience and demanded that Irving put an end to the hysterical behaviour and forbid the use of tongues in all church services.  However, according to Dallimore, Irving believed that if he prevented the prophets from speaking he would be silencing the Holy Spirit and he could not bring himself to suppress them in any way.[117]{C}  Disgusted with Irving’s inaction, an increasing number of Presbyterians began to leave the church.  Despite the declining numbers and the public criticisms, Irving made it clear to the trustees that he was not going to inhibit the gifts of the Spirit, leaving the trustees with no alternative but to have their beloved pastor removed from the pulpit.

Collectively, the trustees did not believe that the utterances that continually disturbed the services at Regent Square to be the inspired voice of God.{C}[118]{C}  Sensing their responsibility to maintain the integrity and order of the church in accordance with the constitution of the Church of Scotland, they turned to the London Presbytery for legal counsel.[119]{C}  According to David Allen, they were advised to proceed to “remove Mr. Irving from his pastoral charge by making complaint to the London Presbytery in the manner pointed out in the deed”.[120]{C}  The trustees proceeded with the complaint, which charged Irving with “Irregularities in Public Worship” by “inserting unlawful material into the liturgy of the Scottish Church”.{C}[121]{C}  Irving was ordered to stand trial on April 26, 1832, and, though his defence was a thorough biblical argument for the restoration of the apostolic gifts of the Holy Spirit, the matter had already been decided.  The London Presbytery, siding with the trustees of the Regent Square Church, declared, “the Reverend Edward Irving has rendered himself unfit to remain the minister of the National Scotch Church, and ought to be removed therefrom in pursuance of the conditions of the trust-deed of the said church.”[122]{C}  On May 4, 1832, in a manner befitting that of an outcast, Irving was permanently locked out of the church where he had served for the past decade.[123]

The Church Splits

Early that morning, Irving and his Pentecostal followers held their regular prayer meeting outside on the front steps of their former church.{C}[124]{C}  Irving, though grieved in his heart that the matter could not be resolved, was buoyed by the desire of his followers to seek a new house of worship where they could openly practice the gifts of the Holy Spirit without persecution.  Fortified by a prophetic utterance that the Lord was going to “do great things”, Irving began searching for a new location for his fledgling church.[125]{C}  The following Sunday, he held his first communion service at the Socialist Rotunda in Grays Inn Road, attended by over eight hundred people in jubilant Pentecostal celebration.{C}[126]{C}  The Regent Square Church however, reopened the following week with a traditional Presbyterian supply minister and a lowly handful of people sitting silently in the cavernous cathedral.{C}[127]

After several months, Irving’s church found a permanent dwelling in a building on Newman Street and the church soon came to be identified as the Newman Street Church.{C}[128]{C}  The first service was held on Sunday, October 19, 1832 and included a prophetic utterance by Henry Drummond, the original sponsor of the Albury Conferences.[129]{C}  Now completely independent of any governing body, the church began to operate under a different system of authority organized around the prophets.  Supposedly under the direction of the Holy Spirit, the prophets started exercising authority over all the affairs of the church including the ministry of their pastor.  They allowed Irving to preach, but because he was not baptized in the Holy Spirit, they essentially became his overseers and began restricting his liberty in the pulpit.[130]{C}  Dallimore states that because Irving believed and taught that the prophets spoke the very words of God, he had little choice but to submit to their decisions.[131]{C}  He found himself at the mercy of even the most insignificant prophetic utterance and, with his leadership slowly ebbing away, he grew increasingly frustrated with the direction of the church.

Within a year, as the church settled into their newly renovated building, the prophets decided to organize the church leadership according to a six-level structure of authority corresponding to their understanding of the New Testament church.[132]{C}  The highest level of authority was designated for apostles, followed by prophets, elders, evangelists, deacons, and the lowest level was for the pastor, also called “Angel” or “messenger”, a term derived from the book of Revelation.[133]{C}  Though the highest position of authority was still vacant, it was not long before one of the prophets, under the power of the Holy Spirit, declared J. B. Cardale as the first apostle of the Newman Street Church.[134]{C}  The congregation was bewildered by the sudden changes and Irving, unable to mollify the confusing and unpredictable environment, began feeling helpless and abandoned.  He started harbouring serious doubts about the validity of the prophetic gifts of some of the prophets, regarding their messages to be of little use even though they were supposed to be of divine origin.  On one occasion, a prophet interrupted the services and, in the power of the Holy Spirit, prophesied, “Ah!  Sanballat, Sanballat, Sanballat, the Horonite, the Moabite, the Ammonite!  Ah!  Confederate, confederate with the Horonite!  Ah!  Look ye to it, look ye to it!”[135]{C}  In addition to these meaningless utterances, several prophecies predicting future events turned out to be false or partially false, forcing Irving into the awkward position of trying to explain these inconsistencies without appearing to criticize the prophets or their divinely anointed prophecies.{C}[136]

Irving’s Demise

While Irving continued to serve under the authority of the prophets at the Newman Street Church, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, to which he still belonged, was becoming agitated about the escalating number of “non-Presbyterian” activities occurring under his leadership.[137]{C}  The National Church formed a special committee who met with the Presbytery of Annan, urging them to expel Irving for his heretical views on the human nature of Christ and the doctrine of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.  Irving was summoned to Annan and, on March 13, 1833, he appeared before his own Presbytery, forced to defend himself in front of an unsympathetic audience of over two thousand people.{C}[138]{C}  In the middle of the hearing, one of Irving’s supporters stood up and prophesied, warning the assembly to flee from the coming wrath of the Almighty, inciting panic and confusion among the crowd.[139]{C}  After order was restored, the Moderator found Irving guilty of heresy and took the unusual step of expelling Irving, not only from the ministry of the Church of Scotland, but also his membership.[140]

Upon his expulsion from the Church of Scotland, he returned to the Newman Street Church, only to discover that the prophets had also revoked him from the pastorate because he no longer possessed any authorized ministerial credentials.{C}[141]{C}  However, they informed him that he could be ordained again if he received the consent of the prophets and the approval of the apostle, J. B. Cardale.[142]{C}  Irving, believing it to be God’s will, humbly submitted to their authority and, through the “laying on of hands”, was reinstated as the pastor of the Newman Street Church.{C}[143]{C}  In Irving’s absence however, new apostles had been appointed and had assumed full control of the church, relegating Irving to the role of servant and subjecting him to the directives of their prophetic utterances.  Under these circumstances, Irving discovered that his colleagues Campbell, Scott, and MacLean, confused by the bizarre activities of the Newman Street Church, had distanced themselves from him and were doubting the authenticity of the prophetic gifts.[144]{C}  Abandoned by his friends and demoted by his church, Irving’s health began to deteriorate and his days in London were coming to an end.

In September of 1834 the Newman Street Church[145] released Irving to establish a new church in the city of Glasgow, Scotland.[146]{C}  As he traveled on horseback through Wales, he stopped to preach at local parishes and, though he drew large numbers of people, his health would not allow him to stand for any prolonged length of time.  Joined by his wife and children in Liverpool, they journeyed together by boat, arriving at their destination in late October.[147]{C}  While in Glasgow, he founded a little congregation and preached a few familiar sermons, but by then his illness had taken hold of his body and he was unable to continue in ministry.[148]{C}  Though he and his wife maintained their confidence in the healing power of Christ, he was eventually confined to his bed, diagnosed with a serious bout of consumption.{C}[149]{C}  Irving died on December 7, 1834 at the age of forty-two, surrounded by his family and a few colleagues of the Kirk.  His funeral homily, delivered before throngs of mourners at the Glasgow Cathedral, was based on 2 Samuel 3:38, “Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel?”[150]

Conclusion

Though his unfortunate demise and untimely death portrays him as a tragic figure, Edward Irving was a Pentecostal pioneer who believed in the baptism of the Holy Spirit and allowed the gifts of the Holy Spirit to operate within his church.  Arising out of his radical eschatology and unorthodox Christology, Irving believed that, since Christ’s return was imminent, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the restoration of the apostolic church was about to unfold.  When he attended McLeod Campbell’s church in Gare Loch and witnessed the gifts of the Holy Spirit in operation, his pneumatological beliefs were confirmed, convincing him of the coming latter rain.  He exhorted people throughout England and Scotland to seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit and many did, receiving the gift of tongues, as well as the gifts of interpretation and prophecy.  Though completely outside the known and accepted realm of traditional religious practice, Irving began allowing the public gifts of the Spirit to operate in the cathedral, essentially turning the orderly and staid Regent Square cathedral into a Spirit-filled, tongue-speaking, Pentecostal assembly.

Pioneers however, make mistakes and Irving, in his earnest desire to restore the apostolic function of the church, misunderstood the nature of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.  Unfortunately, since he did not personally experience the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues, he was at a considerable disadvantage as the primary leader and central figure of the Pentecostal movement.  Without having the experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, Irving was like the captain of a ship who never had the experience of sailing.  His position of authority combined with his lack of experience, regrettably placed him in a position whereby he could be easily mistreated.  He considered those who had received the gifts of tongues and interpretation to possess a higher authority and considered their prophetic utterances as infallible.  This flawed understanding created an inverse and disintegrating leadership structure where the word of the prophets began to control Irving’s every move.  Unfortunately, the prophets and apostles, convinced of their own special rank, established a peculiar type of neo-apostolic hierarchy and eventually took control of all the affairs of the Newman Street Church.  Essentially, Irving was a victim of his own theology and instead of being honoured for his commitment to the restoration of Pentecost, he was relegated to the bottom of their apostolic pyramid.

What would have become of Irving had he received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues?  Would his experience have changed his understanding of the role and function of prophecy?  Would the Newman Street Church have endured to become a Pentecostal church similar to those following the Azusa Street revival of 1906?  The life of Edward Irving leaves many questions unanswered; however, his story does provide a valuable lesson.  Irving’s life is a reminder that the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit, though biblical and life transforming, can be misunderstood and misused.  Though Irving hungered for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the restoration of the apostolic gifts, his doctrine connecting the gift of tongues and interpretation to the office of the prophet proved damaging to the progress of the Pentecostal movement.  His belief system overemphasized the prophetic utterances and undermined the authority of the pastor; it elevated the authority of the prophets and eliminated the priesthood of all believers.  Nonetheless, Edward Irving remains a Pentecostal pioneer and his statue outside the Old Parish Church of his hometown in Annan, Scotland, stands as an enduring testimony of a man who, though for a short time, transformed the respected Regent Square cathedral into London’s first Pentecostal church.

Bibliography: Allen, David.  “This Significance of Edward Irving.”  Paraclete  22 (1988): 18-21. Allen, David.  “A Belated Bouquet: A Tribute to Edward Irving (1792-1834).”  The Expository Times 103 (1992): 328-331. Burgess, Stanley M., McGee, Gary B., and Alexander, Patrick H., eds.  Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements.  Grand Rpaids: Zondervan, 1988. Chambers, D.  “Doctrinal Attitudes in the Church of Scotland in the Pre-Disruption Era: the Age of John McLeod Campbell and Edward Irving.”  The Journal of Religious History 8 (1974): 159-82. Dallimore, Arnold.  Forerunner of the Charismatic Movement: The Life of Edward Irving.  Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1983. Findlater, John.  “The Propaganda of Futurism.”  Evangelical Quarterly 2 (1937): 169- 79. Gunton, Colin, Rev.  “Two Dogma’s Revisited: Edward Irving’s Christology.”  Scottish Journal of Theology 41 (1988): 359-376. Hazlitt, William.  “The Spirit of the Age.”  Essays Picked by Blupete.  No pages.  Cited 07 February 2007.  Online: http://www.bluepete.com/Literature/Essays/Hazlitt/ SpiritAge/Irving.htm. “May 3, 1832: Edward Irving Barred from His Pastorate.”  Christian History Institute.  No pages.  Cited 07 February 2007.  Online: http://chi.gospelcom.net/DAILYF /2003/05/daily-05-03-2003.shtml. Oliphant, Margaret.  The Life of Edward Irving, Minister of the National Scotch Church, London.  New York: Harper & Brothers, 1862. Purves, Jim.  “The Interaction of Christology & Pneumatology in the Soteriology of Edward Irving.”  Pneuma 14 (1992): 81-90.Shaw, P. E.  The Catholic Apostolic Church, Sometimes Called Irvingite: A Historical Study.  New York: King’s Crown Press, 1946. Strachan, Gordon.  The Pentecostal Theology of Edward Irving.  London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1973. “The Town.”  Annan Online.  No pages.  Cited 07 February 2007.  Online: http://www. annan.org.uk/places_interest/index.html. Worsfold, James E.  A History of the Charismatic Movements in New Zealand: Including a Pentecostal Perspective and a breviate of the Catholic Apostolic Church in Great Britain.  West Yorkshire: Puritan Press Ltd, 1974.

Egerton Ryerson, Father of the Ontario Public School System by William Sloos

Architect of modern education in Ontario, Egerton Ryerson (1803-1882) is one of the most prominent and influential evangelicals in Canadian history. As Chief Superintendent of Education for Upper Canada, Ryerson reformed and modernized an impoverished, unregulated, and discriminatory school system that inadequately functioned to educate the children of the burgeoning colony.[1] At the heart of his educational vision was his evangelical faith; a faith formed early by his mother’s Methodism, experiences at camp meeting revivals, and personal conversion to Christ.[2] Ryerson’s conviction that education was second only to religion as God’s highest purpose for human beings was strengthened by his years as Methodist minister and missionary to First Nation peoples.[3] When given the opportunity to confront the suppressive Anglican establishment, he rose to the challenge and led the struggle to overturn the power imbalance.[4] Inspired by the writings of John Wesley and motivated by his Methodist theology, Ryerson became a tireless political activist and administrator, effectively navigating through the turbulent political system and successfully managing to inaugurate a new era of publicly funded, universal education, based on Christian principles.[5] He created an environment in which conversion to Christianity was facilitated through the promotion of Christian knowledge and a broad range of subjects useful for the formation of responsible citizens.[6] Gaining full government approval in 1871, Ryerson’s School Act transformed the deplorable condition of the school system into a standardized and competent educational model unobstructed by rigid denominationalism.[7] This paper will argue that Egerton Ryerson’s evangelical faith influenced his vision for the future of public education in Ontario and most of English speaking Canada.

Early Years

Egerton Ryerson’s early years were defined by his Loyalist upbringing and his conversion to evangelical Christianity, two features that were to have a profound influence on his career. Joseph Ryerson, his American father, served as a Loyalist officer in the American Revolutionary War. The increasingly hostile atmosphere against the Loyalists following the war forced Joseph to flee north to New Brunswick, eventually relocating to Upper Canada.{C}[8] After settling in the Long Point Settlement of Vittoria, he became part of the loyalist establishment, pioneering new land and defending loyalists’ principles against threatening American republicanism.[9] Egerton, the fifth of six sons born to Joseph and Mehetable Ryerson, was too young to participate in the War of 1812, but recalls a brother badly wounded in battle, a memory that fortified a deep and enduring affection to his native land and desire to protect and preserve the British Crown in Upper Canada.[10] During Ryerson’s political career, his loyalist heritage and affections enabled him to straddle political lines between the Tories and the Reformers, a position he exploited to his own advantage in the implementation of his educational reforms.[11]

Although Egerton’s father was a staunch Anglican, his mother was a devout Methodist who modelled a personal and vibrant faith to her sons, reinforced by the frequent visits of Methodist circuit riders and the wave of evangelical revivalism sweeping across the Niagara region.[12] Following in the footsteps of his three older brothers, Egerton experienced a personal and dramatic conversion to Christ.[13] Fused with Puritan-like sentiments, Ryerson vividly describes his spiritual regeneration in his memoirs, stating, “My consciousness of guilt and sinfulness was humbling, oppressive, and distressing; and my experience of relief, after lengthened fastings [sic], watching, and prayers, was clear, refreshing, and joyous.  In the end I simply trusted in Christ.”[14] Following his conversion experience, Egerton describes how his faith generated a radical transformation in his perspective, attitude, emotions, and focus, reporting, “I henceforth had new views, new feelings, new joys, and new strength.  I truly delighted in the law of the Lord…from that time I became a diligent student.”[15] It is ironic, given his future as the leader of education reform in the province, that he associated his regeneration with his enhanced ability for learning.

Despite his father’s intense opposition to Methodism, considering it contrary to the values of Anglicanism, Egerton continued to attend Methodist meetings and secretly study any theological literature he could acquire through his Methodist acquaintances.[16] Seeking to mitigate his father’s hostility however, he relented from becoming a member of the Methodist church until he was eighteen, when a Methodist circuit rider finally persuaded him to officially join the church.{C}[17] Discovering his son’s intentions to formalize his affiliation with the Methodists, Egerton’s father promptly issued an ultimatum that Egerton either leave the Methodists or leave the house.[18] Recognizing the decree was absolute, Egerton reports, “I had the aid of a Mother’s prayers…and a conscious Divine strength according to my need.  The next day I left home.”[19] Though he was later reconciled to his father, this episode highlights Egerton’s independent spirit and dedication to his Methodist faith regardless of the consequences, characteristics that would follow him throughout his career and inform his resolutions as education reformer.

Ministry Years

Over the next decade, Egerton Ryerson’s ministry as an itinerant preacher and missionary would develop his leadership skills, oratory competence, and educational convictions, and prepare him for his highly publicized confrontation with the Anglican establishment. During his classical studies at the Gore District Grammar School in Hamilton, Ryerson experienced a crisis moment where he reported receiving a divine call to serve as a Methodist minister.{C}[20] Though feeling inadequate for the post, he accepted the invitation and availed himself to the apprenticeship of the Methodist circuit preachers. Firm in his decision, he writes in his diary, “I have this day finished twenty-two years of my life.  I have decided this day to travel in the Methodist Connexion and preach Jesus to the lost souls of men.  Oh, the awful importance of this work!  How utterly unfit I am for the undertaking!”[21] After formal recognition by the Canada Conference, the governing body of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Upper Canada, Ryerson became the minister of the Yonge Street Circuit, covering a geographic triangle between Pickering, Weston, and the south shore of Lake Simcoe.[22] Following John Wesley’s road-tested pattern for saddle-bag preachers, Ryerson’s Sundays consisted of riding horseback for thirty miles, preaching three times, and teaching two classes.[23] In addition to his itinerancy, Ryerson also served as a missionary, holding camp meetings with the Mississauga and Mohawk peoples and even living and working with the Ojibway First Nation of the Credit River settlement.[24] Despite common prejudices about the supposed inferiority of the native population, Ryerson expressed a genuine affection for them and strived to gain fluency in their respective languages.[25] Through generous donations received from the churches on his circuit, Ryerson also constructed a school for the natives and taught them agriculture and economics.[26]{C}  After successfully completing his ministerial probation, he was ordained in 1827 and spent the following two years assigned to the Cobourg and Ancaster circuits.[27]

During these rigorous years as a preacher and missionary, one event would thrust Ryerson into the public eye, offering him a historic opportunity to address the religious and educational discrimination of the colony’s deep-rooted Anglican establishment and prepare the ground for his subsequent educational reforms. John Strachan, the leading Church of England cleric in Upper Canada, held the prestigious position as executive of the Family Compact, a collective of wealthy, Anglican elites, who controlled the government and exercised a monopoly over the business, financial, and educational affairs of Upper Canada.[28] Aimed at preserving the social stratification of the colony’s class structure and attacking the swelling Methodist movement, Strachan delivered a sermon condemning the Methodists, describing them as “ignorant American enthusiasts, unsound in religion and disloyal in politics.”[29] Unrestrained, he ridiculed the Methodist clergy, calling them “ignorant persons who had forsaken their proper callings to preach what they neither understood nor cared to learn.”[30] To suppress the strengthening influence of the Methodists and fortify the Anglican hold on power, Strachan demanded that the government grant exclusive Anglican access to the Clergy Reserves[31] and prevent Methodist clergy from solemnizing marriages or holding any titles to church buildings, parsonages, and cemeteries.[32] Strachan’s biased and derogatory statements ignited feelings of indignation among the Methodists and calls went out for an immediate response.{C}[33]

Already having gained a significant reputation among his colleagues, Ryerson was invited to craft a reply to Strachan’s malicious homily, now widely circulating in print throughout the colony. Countering Strachan’s accusations, Ryerson succinctly laid out his claims, citing the inherent dangers of siding with the Established Church, the erudite nature of the Methodist clergy, and Methodist devotion and loyalty to the British Crown.[34] Ryerson’s rebuttal, appearing in William Lyon Mackenzie’s newspaper, produced a sensation within his denomination. The Methodist Quarterly Review remarked that “No other previous publication had ever defended the Methodists of Canada, and nobody had presumed to question the arrogant claims of the Established Church.”[35] Ryerson’s pointed response kindled a debate within government circles and, within four years, legislation was passed permitting other Non-conformist denominations to own land and allow their clergy to marry and baptize.{C}[36] Though further reforms were longer in coming, Ryerson’s achievements for the Methodist cause inspired him to broaden his attack on the Anglican establishment by addressing their discriminatory policies on education, an endeavour that would define his primary mission in life.

Superintendent of Education

After serving as the founding editor of Methodist newspaper The Christian Guardian and the first principle of Victoria College,[37] Ryerson was offered an appointment by Governor General Charles Metcalfe to serve as the Superintendent of Education for Canada West.{C}[38] At the time, Metcalfe was attempting to build a broad support base among both political parties and cross denominations in an effort to avoid appearing too partial towards the Anglican establishment.[39] Appointing Ryerson to a position within his administration would appeal to the Methodist constituency and other moderates throughout the province.[40] Pleased with the new political climate and interested in the opportunity to give leadership to the development of a national education system, Ryerson accepted the position and immediately began focussing his attention on the deplorable conditions of the provincial school system.[41]

The average elementary school in Upper Canada consisted of a poorly constructed log house without indoor plumbing, a fireplace for heat, a lectern for the teacher and rough wooden benches for the students, homemade writing utensils, and a pail of water for drinking.[42] Teaching posts were often filled by unemployed war veterans or recent immigrants attracted by the free board and modest government stipend.{C}[43] With little training and few textbooks, teachers were considered successful if they were able to maintain discipline in a class of twelve to twenty students ranging between six to twenty years of age.[44] Since there was no centralized control over the education system, school attendance was voluntary and most students were only enrolled for a combined average of fifteen months.[45] Except for the wealthy, Anglican elite of Toronto, whose children received a prestigious education at local private schools, few families could afford an education for their children, limiting their future and the advancement of Canadian society.[46] Fortunately for Ryerson, by the time he took office, the failure of the Family Compact’s educational policies and the rising tide of public consciousness to the unacceptable state of public education accorded him a certain degree of respect and a relatively favourable reception to his comprehensive strategy for reform.[47]

At the heart of Ryerson’s vision for educational reform was his evangelical faith, informed by his admiration for John Wesley and his loyalty to Methodist theology.{C}[48] John Wesley, who died only twelve years prior to Ryerson’s birth, was a major influence on Ryerson’s educational philosophies.[49] Having visited Wesley’s home and preached in his chapel at City Road, London, Ryerson connected with Wesley at a deeper level than most of his Methodist colleagues, admiring his passion for learning, rigorous scholarship, and support and promotion of educational institutions.[50] To promote the value of education based on the tenets of the Christian faith, Ryerson frequently referred to Wesley’s teachings in his editorials, letters, and political speeches.[51] Following Ryerson’s death, The Methodist Quarterly Review lauded Ryerson by describing him as one of the “sons of John Wesley,” aligning him with Wesley’s intellectual aptitude and advocacy of educational ideals.[52]

Ryerson’s commitment to Methodist theology, especially his high view of Scripture and millennial eschatology, played a pivotal role in defining his blueprint for a national education system.[53] Ryerson’s educational philosophy, based on a Wesleyan view of moral science, consisted of two primary assumptions: he assumed that all people needed Christianity as the means to true happiness and consequently, he assumed that any system of public instruction should be grounded on Christian values.{C}[54] This entailed teaching a basic form of Christianity to all students, informed not by ecclesiastical doctrines, but by the plain use of Scripture.[55] Refusing to yield to any particular distinctive, Ryerson believed that school teachers were to inculcate simple biblical principles, creating an environment in which conversion to Christianity would be normative and social harmony, self-discipline, and loyalty to the properly constituted authority would be commonplace.{C}[56] Responding to critics who felt he was overemphasizing the need for Biblical instruction in the classroom, Ryerson retorts, “I think there is too little Christianity in our schools, instead of too much; and that the united efforts of all Christian men should be to introduce more, instead of excluding what little there is.”[57] In the era prior to the debilitating impact of Darwinism and higher criticism upon the general acceptance of the Bible, Ryerson contended that the Christian faith and particularly the Bible belongs at the core of any thriving educational system and considered its usage in the schools a sacred and divine right.[58]{C} 

Additionally, Ryerson’s millennial eschatology also informed his educational philosophies.[59] Derived from his nineteenth century Wesleyan Methodist theology, Ryerson maintained that a Christian society, working together through a variety of religious and secular organizations, could usher in the anticipated millennial reign of Christ.[60] At the Second Advent, Christ would bring the development of moral advancement to its culmination and inaugurate a perfected civilization in conformity with the kingdom of God.[61] Traces of his eschatological trajectory are frequently seen in his writings in The Christian Guardian. To illustrate Ryerson’s understanding of the capacity for evangelical faith to advance civilization toward its millennial end, one article asserts that only Christianity provides humanity with the means to strive toward perfection: “wisdom to instruct him, mercy to pardon, grace to sanctify, power to strengthen him, -enlightening his understanding, awakening his conscience, subduing his will, renewing his heart, regulating his passions, expanding his prospects and hopes to a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.”[62] Implementing universal, state-funded, Christian education played a central role in this process and, though education was incapable of regenerating society on its own, Ryerson believed it was an essential component in creating an environment where people could be converted in preparation for the fulfilment of eschatological hope.[63]

Educational Reforms

Following a study tour of the educational models in Europe and the United States, Ryerson submitted a series of reports to the government of Upper Canada, laying out his vision to revolutionize education in the province.{C}[64] To achieve his goals, he began by centralizing the control of the school system under the guidance of a General Board of Education, which would be responsible for the management of local school boards, assessing teachers, standardizing curriculum, and developing libraries.[65] Recognizing the academic advances occurring in society, Ryerson desired a wide variety of subjects be taught in addition to the Bible, including composition, geography, drawing, history, music, natural science, physiology, agriculture, and politics.{C}[66] He established teacher training institutions and progressively set higher standards for the certification of elementary school teachers.[67] One of his most daunting tasks was reorganizing how education was funded.[68] Suggesting that all people should contribute property taxes to fund education regardless of whether they had children in the system caused many objections, some criticizing the proposal as a form of communism, others fearing that such a strategy would create an upsurge in criminal behaviour.{C}[69] Ryerson’s annual town hall meetings throughout Upper Canada garnered favourable support, but the issue remained a point of contention for years.[70] Ryerson’s persistence paid off however, and by his retirement, 4000 of Ontario’s 4,400 school boards were entirely funded by local taxes.{C}[71] Though he had to make some concessions, the greatest being his acknowledgment of the public’s legal right for the maintenance of a separate Catholic school board, Ryerson’s achieved his goal of inaugurating a publicly funded, universal education system free from denominational control, yet established on Biblical values.[72] His comprehensive educational reforms in Ontario became a model for education in the newly formed territories of British Columbia and the Northwest, and eventually became a template for most of English-speaking Canada.{C}[73]

Conclusion

Influenced by his evangelical faith, Egerton Ryerson transformed Ontario’s impoverished, unregulated, and discriminatory education system into a modern, universal, publicly funded model based on Christian principles. Accepting Christ during his early years, Ryerson later entered the Methodist ministry as an itinerant preacher and missionary. Given the opportunity to respond to Strachan’s deprecating homily, Ryerson established himself as a capable pugilist in the battle for religious rights in the colony. Having entered the public sphere, he began addressing the deplorable conditions of the school system, convinced it must be accessible to everyone, regardless of economic status or religious affiliation. Through his role as Superintendent of Education, Ryerson implemented his comprehensive vision for educational reform. Inspired by the life and teachings of John Wesley and informed by his Methodist theology, including his high view of Scripture and millennial eschatology, Ryerson established a national education system that would develop honest, self-controlled, responsible, and productive citizens who are both self-reliant and dependent on God. With his evangelical faith central to his vision for educational reform, Ryerson became the architect of modern education in Ontario and most of English speaking Canada.

Notes

[1] Clara Thomas, Ryerson of Upper Canada (Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1969), 93. [2] R. D. Gidney, “Egerton Ryerson,” in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography Vol. XI 1881-1890, ed. Francess G. Halpenny (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982), 783-795. [3]{C} Claude W.  Doucet, “Egerton Ryerson, 1803-1882.”  Ryerson Archives, (June 2002).  http://www.ryerson.ca/archives/egerton.html (accessed October 22, 2007). [4] Gidney, Dictionary of Canadian Biography, 784.[5] Thomas, Ryerson of Upper Canada, 110.[6] C. M. Steinacher, “Ryerson, Adolphus Egerton,” in the Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, ed. Timothy Larsen (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2003), 569-571.[7] Gidney, Dictionary of Canadian Biography, 793. [8]{C} Gidney, Dictionary of Canadian Biography, 784.[9]{C} Gidney, Dictionary of Canadian Biography, 784.[10]{C} Steinacher, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, 569. [11]{C} Ryerson described himself as a moderate Tory belonging to no political party; throughout his life, he would strive to define an independent Tory position, as free as possible from partisan politics.  Stanley E. McMullin, “Ryerson’s Rule,” Horizon Canada English ed. in the Canadian Reference Centre Database, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=14&sid=3ade9a3b-64f2-4b8d-9fa8-3c7aa3d95b82%40sessionmgr2 (accessed October 23, 2007). [12]{C} Gidney, Dictionary of Canadian Biography, 783. [13]{C} Victor Shepherd, “Egerton Ryerson: From Methodist Itinerant to Chief Superintendent of Education (1803-1882).”  Touchstone 3:20 (2002): 38. [14]{C} Egerton Ryerson, The Story of My Life, ed. by J. George Hodgins (Toronto: William Briggs, 1883. [15]{C} Ryerson, The Story of My Life, 26. [16]{C} Ryerson, The Story of My Life, 26. [17]{C} Ryerson, The Story of My Life, 26.[18]{C} Ryerson, The Story of My Life, 26.[19]{C} Ryerson, The Story of My Life, 26.[20]{C} Gidney, Dictionary of Canadian Biography, 784.[21]{C} C. B. Sissons, Egerton Ryerson: His Life and Letters Vol. 1, (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1937), 9.[22]{C} Shepherd, “Egerton Ryerson”, 40.[23] Shepherd, “Egerton Ryerson”, 40.[24]{C} Ryerson, The Story of My Life, 41.[25] Steinacher, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, 570.[26] Shepherd, “Egerton Ryerson”, 40.[27]{C} Gidney, Dictionary of Canadian Biography, 784.[28] Shepherd, “Egerton Ryerson”, 40.[29]{C} Gidney, Dictionary of Canadian Biography, 784.[30]{C} Sissons, Egerton Ryerson: His Life and Letters Vol. 1, 23.[31] The Clergy Reserves were land set aside for the sole use of generating income for the church.[32] Shepherd, “Egerton Ryerson”, 40.[33]{C} Sissons, Egerton Ryerson: His Life and Letters Vol. 1, 23.[34] Shepherd, “Egerton Ryerson”, 41. [35]{C} D. D. Whedon, ed., Methodist Quarterly Review Vol. LXV, (New York: Phillips & Hunt,1883), 82.[36] Shepherd, “Egerton Ryerson”, 42.[37] Steinacher, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, 570.[38]{C} Canada West was the western portion of the Province of Canada from February 10, 1841 to July 1, 1867.  Its boundaries were identical to those of the former province of Upper Canada.[39]{C} Gidney, Dictionary of Canadian Biography, 788.[40]{C} Gidney, Dictionary of Canadian Biography, 788.[41]{C} Gidney, Dictionary of Canadian Biography, 788.[42]{C} McMullin, “Ryerson’s Rule,” Canadian Reference Database.{C}[43]{C} McMullin, “Ryerson’s Rule,” Canadian Reference Database.[44]{C} McMullin, “Ryerson’s Rule,” Canadian Reference Database] [45]{C} McMullin, “Ryerson’s Rule,” Canadian Reference Database. [46]{C} McMullin, “Ryerson’s Rule,” Canadian Reference Database. {C}[47]{C} Gidney, Dictionary of Canadian Biography, 788.[48]{C} Gidney, Dictionary of Canadian Biography, 789.[49] Thomas, Ryerson of Upper Canada, 110.[50] Thomas, Ryerson of Upper Canada, 110.[51]{C} Sissons, Egerton Ryerson: His Life and Letters Vol. 1, 140.[52]{C} Whedon, ed., Methodist Quarterly Review Vol. LXV, 86.[53] Steinacher, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, 571.[54]{C} Neil McDonald and Alf Chaiton, eds., Egerton Ryerson and His Times, (Toronto: Macmillan Company of Canada Limited, 1978), 64-65.[55] Steinacher, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, 571.[56] Steinacher, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, 571.[57]{C} Ryerson, The Story of My Life, 428.[58]{C} Ryerson, The Story of My Life, 430.[59] Steinacher, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, 571.[60] Steinacher, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, 571.[61] Steinacher, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, 571.[62] McDonald and Chaiton, eds., Egerton Ryerson and His Times, 65.[63] Steinacher, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, 571. [64]{C} Doucet, “Egerton Ryerson, 1803-1882.”  Ryerson Archives. {C}[65]{C} McMullin, “Ryerson’s Rule,” Canadian Reference Database.[66]{C} McMullin, “Ryerson’s Rule,” Canadian Reference Database.[67]{C} Gidney, Dictionary of Canadian Biography, 790.[68]{C} McMullin, “Ryerson’s Rule,” Canadian Reference Database.[69]{C} McMullin, “Ryerson’s Rule,” Canadian Reference Database.[70]{C} McMullin, “Ryerson’s Rule,” Canadian Reference Database.[71]{C} McMullin, “Ryerson’s Rule,” Canadian Reference Database.[72] Shepherd, “Egerton Ryerson”, 45.[73]{C} McMullin, “Ryerson’s Rule,” Canadian Reference Database.

Shell Shock: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Among World War One Soldiers