-The Church and Sectarianism

The Church and Sectarianism THE CHURCH AND SECTARIANISM
G. C. Brewer As this lecture is one of a series on the church and as some six or seven brethren have preceded me on this program, it will hardly be necessary to give a lengthy definition of the church, at this time. The other speakers have no doubt clearly defined the word and described the institution that we are studying dur­ing this lectureship. However, the subject of this lec­ture makes it absolutely necessary that we have a clear understanding of what- the church is; of what that word as used in this speech includes. We must, there­fore, survey our field and learn the metes and bounds of our territory. If there is a repetition in this lec­ture of the thoughts that have been presented by the speakers who have preceded me you may blame the program committee who selected the subjects and assigned them to men who live in different states and at great distance from each other, and who were required to write their addresses before they came to the scene of action, and to the hour of delivery. There will be soxne repitition of thought in the different divisions of this lecture. The points of this address, then, shall be given in the following order and in answer to these questions:

I. The church.
1. What is it?
2. Whom does it include?
3. What names should be used to designate it?
II. Sectarianism.
1. What is a sect?
2. The word sect as used in the scriptures,
3. “The Christian sects.”
4. Sectarianizing scriptural names.
5. Rising above sectarianism.

Turning now to the task thus outlined let us con­sider:

I. The Church. Paul tells us that the church, what­ever that is, is subject to Christ in all things (Ephesians 5:24) ; that Christ is the head of the church (Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18) ; that .Christ “loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it; hav­ing cleansed it by the washing of water with the word; that he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be. holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5,:25-27). The institution here called the church 4s not defined in these passages but what is- said about it is sufficient to arouse interest and provoke inquiry in the mind of every intelligent reader. We may not learn what the church is from these references but we could not fail to note the relationship that it sus­tains to Christ.. Christ loves it; has given himself up for it; has prepared to present it unto himself as. some­thing that is holy and glorious. Christ is its head and it is subject to Christ in all things. Whatever we do or regardless of what other lesson we learn we must never forget these basic truths. We must never give any recognition to any impudent assumption of power over the church by man, for its Head is divine, infal­lible, and eternal. We must never suffer the church to submit to any laws, obey any orders or follow any decrees that emanate from any authority except from its divine Head Nor can we allow the church to assume to be a self-governing democratic body, making its rules and regulating its course by the vote of its mem­bers, for “the church is subject to Christ in all things/’ And the thought of corrupting or polluting this cleansed and sanctified institution should perish be­fore it materializes or before it finds form and sub­stance in either word or deed. Wq should delight to use the exact phraseology of these passages and never hesitate or blush to apply the adjectives that the inspired penman here attached to the word church. Our language should need no explanation when we speak of the church and there should be no embargo upon our tongues when we desire to enunciate the phrases the holy church, the glorious church. ,

1. What is the church ? This question can be quickly answered in the exact language of the scriptures. The most indifferent reader of the Pauline epistles could hot overlook such expressions as “And he is the head of the body, the church”; “for his body’s sake, which is the church“the church which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all;” “the house of God which is the church of the living God” (Colossians 1:18; Colossians 1:24; Ephesians 1:22; 1 Timothy 3:15). And then with only a modicum of mental effort he would see that “we are members of his body” (Ephesians 5:30) ; and that “Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally mem­bers thereof” (1 Corinthians 12:27) ; that “All the members of the body, being many, are one body: So also is Christ. For in one spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one spirit” (1 Cor. 12: 12:13). That Christ is “high priest over the house of God” (Hebrews 10:19). And that he is not a servant in the house but that he is “A Son over his house whose house are we” (Hebrews 3:6). With these quotations before us we are forced to see that the church is the body of Christ, the house of God and that individual Christians are the members of that body and that collectively they compose that house. And these Christians are elsewhere referred to as the household of God and as being builded together as a Temple and a habitation for God (Ephesians 2:19-22).

Therefore the followers of Christ, Christians, regenerated or saved persons compose the church. We read that God added to the church day by day those that were being saved (Acts 2:47). Since this was done each day as they were saved—The same day they were saved—it follows that no saved person ever remained out of the church overnight. The idea there­fore of being a saved person, a Christian, and not being in the church- is not only unscriptural, it is absurd. One could no more be saved and not be added to the church than one could be born and not thereby be added to the family, into which one is born.

2. Whom does the church include? This question has just been plainly and completelv answered and you are no doubt wondering why it should be repeated and used as a sub-heading in this discussion. But your perplexity will soon pass and the reason for this will immediately become apparent. This question has ram­ifications that must be fully run out and removed. Since the church is the body of Christ and Chris­tians are severally members thereof it is inevitable that the body includes all of its members, therefore includes all Christians, of course. Since the church is the household of God it must of course include all of the children of God. God has no children who are not allowed to live in his house, associate with and enjoy the fellowship of the family and to inherit the blessing's to which all his children are heirs. Any institution that does not include all of God’s children cannot be the church of God. Even if such an institution is com­posed entirely of Christians, contains only Christians, and yet does not contain all Christians it cannot be the church of God. The best that it could claim to be is a faction of the church of God, therefore a sect, as We shall see. To apply the terms the church, or the church of God, or the church of Christ to any limited number of Christians is to sectarianize these Scriptural phrases of which we shall soon speak more particularly. The church of the New Testament includes all Chris­tians of every race, color and clime. It not only includes all Christians who now live but it includes all Christians who have ever lived since the day of Pente­cost. Paul speaks of the whole family both in heaven and on earth (Ephesians 3:15). God does not have two families—one in heaven and the other on earth. He has one family and a part of it is in heaven while the other part is still sojourning and suffering on the earth and our Father speaks to the blessed dead beneath the altar; and bids them rest until their fellow-ser­vants, their brethren upon the earth should finish their course (Revelation 6:9). They are still our brothers and we are theirs. Paul tells us that whether we live or die we are the Lord’s (Romans 14:7-9). Death does not change our relationship to Jehovah. We are his chil­dren while we live and we are none the less his children after we are dead for all live unto him (Luke 20:35). Therefore God’s family, God’s church, is composed of all God’s redeemed children in heaven and on earth.

We become children of God and therefore members of the church of God by the spiritual birth—the birth of water and the spirit—or by conversion or by obey­ing’ the gospel. Nothing less than this can make any one a Christian—a member of the church in the true sense. People are in a general way recognized as Christians if they possess some outstanding Christian characteristic—if they are charitable and truthful and kind. This however is not enough. uYe must be born again.”

3. What names should be used to designate the church? The church is the only designation that the body of Christ needs when it is thought of as a called- out host or band of people. When other features or characteristics of the holy institution are contemplated it is designated as a bride, a body, a house, temple, kingdom, army, et cetera. The church is nowhere named in the Bible in the sense in which we speak of church names. Why should it be? The word church is a noun that is applied to the institution of which Christ is the founder and head. It is therefore the name that is divinely given to that redeemed host who compose Christ’s body. No limiting or distin­guishing adjective is ever used to modify this noun in God’s 'yvord. There are adjectives that describe quali­ties or attributes of the church, but there is never any term attached to that noun that would designate a church among many churches or to name the partic­ular church that is in mind. I repeat, the church is nowhere named in the New Testament. All our talk about the Scriptural names for the church is simply unscriptural jargon. We may talk about the names that are given to individual members of the church and these are several, and we may, if we have intelli­gence enough not to make a distinction where there is no difference, apply these names to Christians col­lectively, hence to the church, without contravening any principle of divine teaching. Paul did this when he spoke of the ‘'churches of the saints" ana of tne “church of the first born who are enrolled in heaven" meaning tne church of the children of God or the Chx*is- tians, of course. We may apply any terms to the church that express any Scriptural thought concerning the. church. If tne terms used convey a Scriptural idea and only a Sciiptural idea the terms themselves are bound to be Scriptural even if they are not found ipsissimis verbis in the Bible. We may correctly speak of the church as the New Testament churcn, the first century church, the blood-purchased church, the apos­tolic church, the Christian cnurch, the Christly church, the saintly church, the catholic church, the holy church, the cleansed church, the sanctified church, the Redeem­er’s church, the rock founded church, the age-lascing church, the missionary church and so on until we have exhausted the entire teach-ng of the word of God con­cerning the origin and the organization, the attributes and the functions of that institution. We could without domg violence to the Scriptures speak of the noly sanc­tified catholic church of God in Christ. That combina­tion of words, as well as some of the otners used in reference to church, might rot escape the criticism of the teachers of English, but the idea that it expresses is entirely Scriptural.

While we may use any or' all these descriptive desig­nations of the church according as our purpose demands or our taste dictates, yet if we should exalt and set apart any one of them as the nam.e of the church, we would be guilty of a serious error. We would be presumptuously supplementing the work of inspiration for no inspired man ever gave any name to the church. The expressions “the church of God,” “the church of the living God,” and “the churches of God” are found quite often in the Scriptures and the expres­sion “the churches of Christ” is found one time in the New Testament. But no one of these expressions is intended as the name of the church. If it were that name would be used when the writer comes again to refer to the church and the expression would not be varied with each recurring reference. Furthermore, the initial capital letter that grammar always demands in spelling proper names would be used in each word of that name. The copyists and the translators failed to see this demand in these, expressions for they did not turn the phrase into a proper name. These expres­sions, church, of God and church of Christ, denote ownership. They tell us something about that insti­tution that is designated by the noun church. So also does the, phrase “my church.” That is not a name. “My” is neither a noun nor an adjective, and could not form part of a name. It is a pronoun in the possessive case and therefore denotes ownership of the church. Christ designated or denominated that building which he proposed to build by the noun—name, church. The church is called the “Israel of God” but that is not the name of the church. We read also of “the churches of the Gentiles,” “the church of the Laodi- ceans,” “the church of the Thessalonians” (Romans 16:4; Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 1:1), but these expressions only describe the particular congregations referred to by naming the people who composed those congregations.

Abraham is called the “friend of God” and “the father of the faithful” but neither of these compli­mentary titles was his name. God gave him the name Abraham. The Jews of old were called by Jehovah “my people,” “the people,” “the people of God,” “his people and the sheep of his flock,” but no'one of these was their name. Their God-given name was Israel. The word church in the singular and the plural form is found one hundred and twelve times in the New Testament when used to designate the kingdom of Christ. The Greek word Ecclesia occurs one hundred and sixteen times but once it refers to the Jews'in the wilderness and three times to the mob at Ephesus. The other one hundred and twelve times the chulch of our Lord is named by this word. Yet never one time is it limited or distinguished by any qualifying-adjec­tive. We read that Ghrist “loved the church,” Chfist is “the head of the church, “the Lord added to1 the church,” Paul “made havoc of the church,” “God hath set some in the church,” “unto him be glory in the church,” “Call the elders of the church,” that the mani­fold wisdom of God “might be made known through the church,” etc. The church was a sufficient desig­nation for inspiration. To speak of the Latin church, the Greek church and the Anglican church is to restrict the word church in each case to a certain people and a certain language. The three terms designate three different peoples of as many different languages. While each one of these churches claims to be the Catholic church each one destroys the idea of catholicity by confining the church to the people of one language. The names Roman Catholic Church, Greek Catholic Church and Anglican Catholic Church each contains a contradiction. The word catholic means universal and the words Roman, Greek and Anglican mean something particular and local. If the church is Roman or Greek or Anglican then it is not Catholic—not universal. It does not con­tain all those who acknowledge Christ as Lord, but only those of a definite bi'and. Therefore each one of these churches is a sect in the fair import of that word. In his debate with Bishop Purcell, Alexander Camp­bell affirmed and Purcell denied this proposition: “The Roman Catholic Institution sometimes called the Holy, Apostolic, Catholic, Church, is not now, nor was she ever, Catholic, Apostolic or holy; but is a sect in.the fair import of that word, older than any other sect now existing, not the Mother and Mistress of all churches, but an apostasy from the only true, holy, apostolic and catholic church of Christ.”

Since the expression the church as used in the New Testament designates the universal institution we do not need to insert the epithet catholic between the article and the noun.

II. SECTARIANISM.
1. What is a sect? The word sect means to cut off, to separate. The English word is from the same Latin root from which we get our word section. It denotes a part of a whole. It therefore implies that the whole has been, divided or parcelled. The word section may refer to the dividing or the parcelling of a pie, an apple or a body of land. But the word sect connotes a division of a people according to religious or philosophic principles. Those who compose the dif­ferent sects must belong to one people. They must be one on some general principle. If they were not one in some sense they could not be divided. The Jews were a special race of people. They were one in blood, in history, and in the broad outlines of religion. They all recognized the one God, one Law-giver, and one law. But they were divided over interpretations of the law and over speculative opinions. The best known sects of the Jews were the Pharisees, the Sadduccees, and the Essenees. The unbelieving Jews characterized Christianity as a new sect; a sect among the Jews, a new division or party among the one people—Jews. The Greeks were one people—distinct from other people. As the Jews were devoted to religion and to religious controversy the Greeks devoted themselves to philosophy and to philosophical speculations. The Greeks were divided into sects. The two most promi­nent sects among the Greeks were at first the Cynics, founded by Antisthenes, and the Academics who were followers of Plato. Later the Cynics became known as Stoics and the Academics as the Peripatetics. Still later these became known as Epicureans.

We would not think of comparing one of the Jewish sects with one of the Greek sects because they are not part of the same whole. Their fields of thought were entirely different. They were not one in blood, in reli­gion, in philosophy, or in any other sense except that they both belonged to the human family. The terms Greek and Jew would be sufficient to distinguish them from each other without descending to the details of the particular sect of the Jews or of the Greeks to which an individual might belong. This illustrates the fact that different sects must belong to the same general body. Religious sects are composed of people who have the same religion. The sects, as we speak of them today, are sects among pro­fessed Christians. They are believers in the Christian religion and claim to follow Christ. That is why they are sometimes called “Christian Sects.” They are all one in general outline. They are one in their agree­ment on same basic principles. In fact, if we would find and emphasize the points of agreement instead of the points of difference between them, we would find that there is such complete agreement on some of the most vital principles that we would feel that it should be an easy matter to remove the differences and bring them together. In solemn truth the principles upon which they are agreed if applied and adhered, to would bring them together. In other words, if they prac­ticed what they preached they would soon be united.

Especially is this true of Protestant sects. They all in a general sense recognize the same rule of faith, the same standard of authority. In the preface to “Wes­ley’s notes,” John Wesley says, “Would to God that all sectarian names were forgotten, and that we, as hum­ble, loving disciples, might sit down together at the Master’s feet, read his holy word, imbibe his Holy Spirit, and transcribe his life in our own.” Speaking of the general rules in the Discipline, Mr. Wesley says, “All of which we are taught of God to observe even in his written word, ivhich is the only rule, and the suf­ficient rule, both for our faith and practice.” In the Prayer Book of the Church of England, in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, and in the Metho­dist Discipline, the following substantially is found: “The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, or may not be proved thereby, is not required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of faith, or thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” The words of Chillingworth have been adopted and quoted by all Protestants—“The Bible and the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants.” Protestants are by this seen to be one in the most fundamental postulate. If they would live by this they would all be one in the Scriptural sense. But at any rate we see that the sects are only factions or portions or separate bonds of the same great body of people—the people who at least accept Christianity as the true religion.

2. The word sect as used in the Scriptures. The word sect is found five times in the King James trans­lation and six times in the Revised Version. It is from the Greek word hairesis and this word occurs nine times in the Greek New Testament. The Authorized Version translates it heresy four times and sect five times. • The Revisers rendered it sect six times, fac­tions twice, and heresies once. While in three places it is applied to Christians, it was so applied by their enemies and was not accepted by them. Paul did not admit that he was the leader of a sect but he confessed that after the manner which his enemies called heresy or a sect, he worshipped the God of his fathers. The word does not have a favorable meaning at all. We have seen that our translators used the words sect, fac­tion and heresy interchangeably and no one under­stands either faction or heresy to connote something that is good and praiseworthy. Paul numbers sects among the works of the flesh. He says: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: for­nication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wrath, factions, (hairesis, sects), divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revel- ings, and such like” (Galatians 5:19-20). Thus the apostle classes sects or factions among the blackest sins ever committed by a fallen race and even goes so far as to say “that they who practice such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.” Surely aTnore posi­tive and severe condemnation of sects could not be asked for. The apostle Peter speaks of damnable heresies or sects, or according to the margin of the Revised ver­sion, of sects of perdition (2 Peter 2:1). Paul says there must be “factions or sects among you, that they that are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Corinthians 11:20). In other words, there must be sects or sectarians among you in order that those who are not factions—not sectarian in spirit—may be known as the approved ones. The others, of course, are not approved.

Certainly sects and sectarianism are condemned in the Scriptures, not only in the strong admonitions for all saints to be perfectly joined together in one mind and one judgment and in the severe denunciations of divisions but also in the very use of the term sect and in its reprobation.

3. “The Christian sects.” In his Review of Campbellism Dr. J. B. Jeter says: “Mr. Campbell aspired to the honor of being a reform­er. That a reformation was needed by the Christian sects of that time none, who possess a tolerable acquaintance with their conditions and the claims of the gospel, will deny.” Dr. Jeter is by no means the only Doctor of Divinity who has characterized the sects as Christian. But we have seen that sects meet with unqualified condemnation in the Scriptures.

They are called damnable by inspired writers and of course they cannot by those who respect inspiration be considered Christian. Yet we have seen that they originate among those who compose one body in some sense. They are simply the separating of Christians into different and warring bands. This being true, that is, since each band is composed of Christians why are they not Christian bands or sects? They are Chris­tians to atheists or to people of a heathen religion. They profess to follow Christ. As Moses E. Lard very aptly said, “sectarianism originates in the church but finds its consummation out of it.” When Christians become sectarians in spirit, when the partisan feeling runs high and becomes regnant, they then and thereby become un-Christian. Though it is often true that persons who by rearing or by some fortuitous circumstance are members of a sect and yet not at all possessed of a sectarian spirit. This whole point is so dexterously handled by Broth­er Lard in his reply to Dr. Jeter that I here beg leave to give you his complete statement. He says: “But Mr. Campbell never proposed a reformation of Christian sects as such. He proposed that all sincere and pious Christians should abandon these sects, and, uniting upon the great foundation upon which, as a rock, Christ said he would build his church, form them­selves into a church of Christ, and not into a sect. A Christian sect we pronounce simply an impossible thing. Sects there may be, innumerable; but Chris­tians, as a sect, they can never be. A church of Christ is not a sect, in any legitimate sense of the term. As soon as a body of believers, claiming to be a church of Christ, becomes a sect, it ceases to be a church of Christ. Sect and Christian are terms denoting incom­patible ideas. Christians there may be in all the sects, as we believe they are; but, in them though they may be, yet of them, if Christians, clearly they are not. Mr. Campbell’s proposition never looked to the reforma­tion of sects as such. A sect reformed would still be a sect; and sect and Christians are not convertible terms. Sectarianism originates, and necessarily, in the church, but has its consummation out of it. Hence Paul, in addressing the church at Corinth, says, “There must be also heresies (sectarianism) among you, that they who are approved may be made manifest.” But here is something which seems never to have struck the mind of Mr. Jeter. With the apostle, sectarianism originated with the bad, and the good were excluded; but with Mr. Jeter it includes the good, and the bad excluded. How shall we account for the difference? As soon, however, as the heretic (the sectarian) is dis­covered in the church, he is, by the apostle’s direction, to be admonished a first and second time, and then, if he repent not, to be rejected. Now we request to be informed by Mr. Jeter how, according to this rule, a Christian sect can exclude here sectarians and still remain a sect? Heresy and sectarianism are identical, being both represented by the same term in the same sense in the original; and that which they represent has its origin in the flesh. Hence the same apostle, in
enumerating the works of the flesh, mentions, among other things, strife, sedition, heresy (sectarianism). Heresy or sectarianism, we are taught by the Apostle Peter, is introduced into the church by false teachers, and is damnable; and yet Mr. Jeter, with true foster­father tenderness, can talk of Christian sects.”

4. Sectarianizing Scriphiral Phraseology. Divisions always call for party names and party names in return perpetuate divisions. Whenever a new sect is born some name must be applied to it that will distin­guish it from all other sects. The factious or party spirit which gave rise to the new sect will very prob­ably find expression in the appellation that is applied to the sect. The doctrine for which it contends will be intimidated in its name or the man who led in the secession and formation of the sect will bequeath his name, willingly or unwillingly, to his party. Thus the spirit of division, the party spirit, becomes embalmed in the name and will be held as a precious treasure by members of the sect and given as a heritage to their children. But since each sect usually makes a special plea for some point that it believes the Scriptures to each and which others have neglected or perverted, it is but natural that such a sect would apply Scriptural terms to itself. Hence we very frequently see a sect using a Bible phrase for its name; designating itself with Scriptural terms. And there are those who will con­tend that if the terms are Scriptural the name is proper. But any sensible person who will give a sober second thought to the proposition must know that it is unscriptural to give a sectarian sense to New Testament terms. The terms themselves are right but that use of them is wrong. The noun church is eminently Scriptural, as we have seen, but it is grossly unscriptural to apply that term to a sect. The church is composed of all the children of God and they “are severally members thereof,” but to apply the term to a sect, faction or to only a portion of God’s children, granting that all members of the sect are God’s children, is bigotry and presumption. The followers of Mrs. Eddy call themselves, when considered collectively, The Church of Christ and of course this is a Scriptural expression. But do these people use it in the New Testament sense? Are they speaking of the church that embraces all of Christ’s disciples or do they mean to include only those dis­ciples of Christ—granting that they are such—who subscribe to and agree in some principles that are peculiar to themselves—not common to all Christians? If they do that, then of course they have applied the name to a sect—sectarianized it. This is exactly what they do and they even add a qualifying term to show precisely who is included in the name. Hence upon the cornerstone we read, “Church of Christ, Scientist.” The followers of Joseph Smith afford us another illustration. They call themselves “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,” and then another faction records their division in its title and proclaims it in its insignia. It is “The Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” Now we all must admit that the expression the church of Jesus Christ is Scriptural; and while it might not be either euphonius or grammatical, the church of Jesus Christ of All Saints would not be unscriptural, though it would be wrong to use it as a proper name. But when they add the limiting terms “of Latter Day” they clearly intend to include in their use of the word church only those saints—granting that they all are saints—who live in modern times or in these last days. By their own admission, therefore, their sect does not include Peter and Paul and James and John or any other former day saint. Their sect cannot therefore, be the church of Jesus Christ. The people who started out to restore the New Tes­tament church and who adopted the maxims, “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent,” and “Bible names for Bible things, and Bible thoughts in Bible terms” have fallen into the error of using Bible terms in a sectarian sense. When we used Bible designations in their proper sense we could with no amount of persuasion induce our friends among the sects to apply these terms to us. They would concede that we were Christians but they vehe­mently insisted that we were “Campbellites”—that is, that we belonged to a sect of Christians. Our funda­mental proposition was to destroy all sects and induce all followers of Christ to be Christians only and this was the one point that brought the bitterest opposition from all sectarians. They would allow us to differ from them on any special point of doctrine and still be friendly with us but they would never endure the idea that we were not a sect in the same way that they are sects. They might even concede that we had more truth than any of them if only we would agree to make our portion of the truth the creed of a sect. They did not care what we contended for if only we would make the contention as a sect. That is why our opposition has grown so weak in these days. We have, in spite of ourselves, become a sect whose special purpose is to contend against sectarianism. The word Camp- bellite has about disappeared from the vocabulary of our neighbors. Why? Because they are willing for us to have a Scriptural name if we will give it sec­tarian limitations. They are ready to concede us the right to form a sect and then to name that sect what­ever we choose. They scruple not nor hesitate to call us “Disciples of Christ” using the capital “d” for dis­ciples and thus making a proper name out of the expression. That denotes a sect and all sectdom is ready to facilitate the newcomer. Or the term “Christian Church” and “Church of Christ” using the capital “C” for church in each case are thus made proper names and they are entirely acceptable to our opponents. They become the name of a sect. They designate a spe­cial band of professed Christians and that is all any sect is. But some brother whose feelings are deeper than his thinking is ready to rise and vociferate that the expres­sion church of Christ is Scriptural. Of course it is. That could never be denied. So also is the expres­sion disciples of Christ. It is not the expression that is questioned. It is the use of the expression that is wrong.

It is never wrong to speak of the church as the church of Christ or the church of God or the church of the saints or the church of the firstborn, but to repeat what has been said before, to exalt any one of these into the patented name of the church is to sec- tarianize that expression. If we have not done that very thing with the expression church of Christ then why do we not vary our terms in speaking of the church? Why is every deed made to the Church of Christ? Why is “Church of Christ” put upon every cornerstone or front of every meeting house? Why does the “Church of Christ” have a literature series? So fixed and uni­form is this designation that if we should insert the name Jesus in the expression it would cause confusion. If a disciple were in a strange city and while looking for the meeting place of the saints he should come upon a house with this inscription, “The Church of Jesus Christ,” if he did not pass it up he would hesitate and make further inquiry before he entered that house. He is looking for a church of the Lord but he is not looking for this particular one. He is looking for the one that wears the stabilized, invariable name, “Church of Christ.” A name which, therefore, distinguishes it from the church of Jesus Christ, or the church of God or the church of the saints and all other of the Lord’s churches—implying, of course, that he has several. To use the terms church of Christ to include any limited number of saints or to make it the name of the church is to sectarianize the expression.

Brethren, I do not expect you to get this point with­out some suffering but if you will endure the necessary pain caused by forcing the needle through the skin by which you get the anti-sectarian serum your suffer­ing will then be over and your spiritual condition will , soon be much better. So mote it be.

5. Rising above sectarianism.
A more noble purpose never glowed in the bosom of any reformer, crusader or martyr than that which inspired those heroic souls who inaugurated what is known as the restoration movement. They had no intention of founding a new sect to contend for any spe­cial doctrine or for any particular set of Christian prin­ciples. They called upon all the professed followers of Christ to abandon sectarian names, remove sectarian boundaries, rise above the sectarian spirit and be mem­bers only of the church—the church which includes all Christians and teaches all the Christian principles. Nor did they ever assume, much less say, that there were no people who were sincerely endeavoring to follow Christ among the sects. Nay, they proceeded upon the basis that the sects were all earnestly serving God and they, like the grand apostle to the Gentiles, sim­ply endeavored to show them all things that were spok­en by the law and the prophets, by Christ and the apostles, arid to tell them how to reach that which they all hoped to attain. They did not found a church of their own and leave everybody out of it who did not agree with them. They did not make a fetish of bap­tism or of any other special doctrine. They proposed to teach just what the New Testament teaches on all questions. This has already been made clear by the quotation made from Moses E. Lard but this is such a vital point and it is so much needed by the younger preach­ers among us that I shall let you hear the clear ring­ing statements of some other pioneers. Their views and purposes may not be your views and purposes but at least theirs is perfectly clear.

J. Z. Tyler: The following extracts are taken from a sermon preached by this brother in Richmond, Vir­ginia, in 1882: “Were you to ask of me one word which would most exactly present the central purpose of the peculiar plea presented by the Disciples, I would give you the deeply significant and comprehensive word restoration. For it was their purpose, as they declared in the beginning, and as, without variation, they have continued to declare to the present, to restore to the world in faith, in spirit, and in practice, the religion of Christ and his apostles, as found on the pages of the New Testament Scriptures. The originators of this movement did not propose to themselves as their distinct work the refor­mation of any existing religious body, or the recasting of any religious creed. They proposed to themselves, and to all who might choose to associate themselves with them in this work, a task no less than restora­tion. .......

“As we study the historic development of this move­ment, we find its protest against divisions, and its plea for Christian union was its first strongly marked fea­ture. The declaration and address of 1809 was an arraignment of sectism, depicting its evil consequences and its sinful nature, and an earnest call upon minis­ters and churches to labor for the union of Christians as they were united in the beginning. “After consid­ering the divisions in various lights,” says Dr. Richard­son, in his Memoirs of A. Campbell, “as hindering the dispensation of the Lord's Supper; spiritual inter­course among Christians; ministerial labors, and the effective exercise of church discipline, as well as tend­ing to promote infidelity, an appeal is made to gospel ministers to become leaders in the endeavor to remedy these evils; and especially is this urged upon those in the United States, as a country happily exempted from the baneful influence of a civil establishment of any particular form of Christianity, and from under the influence of an anti-Christian hierarchy.” This move­ment did not arise from controversy about any partic­ular views of baptism, spiritual influence, or kindred questions mooted at a later date, in the progress of the work. Let this statement be considered emphatic, since the popular idea seems to be that out of such contro­versy we arose, and that our plea finds its roots in these questions. The central aim ivas restoration; the first feature sought to be restored ivas the union of Christians as in the beginning. ........

“The fact is, the idea of union is becoming more popular as the years pass by. Yet while this is true, the plea for union, which the disciples present, is still peculiar. They oppose division not simply as unwise and impolitic, but as positively sinful, and to be repent­ed of and forsaken as any other sin. They plead not simply for an underlying and hidden unity, but for an open and manifest union, such a unity and union that the world may see it and believe, concerning Christ, that God sent him into the world. They do not call for a confederation of sects, but labor for the total abolition of sectism.”

“But,” it is objected, “your exclusive appropriation of the name Christian implies that, in your opinion, there are not Christians in the world except your­selves.” In this objection there would be force if we really aimed at an exclusive appropriation of this name. But this exclusiveness is not our claim. We distinctly teach there are most excellent Christians who are not enrolled with us. Were this not true pray why should we plead for the union of Christians? We are united, and, if we did not believe there are Christians in the world outside of our ranks, our plea would be sense­less and absurd. The point in which we are peculiar is simply this—we persistently reject all human names. We rejoice that there are so many devout Christians in the world, and we call upon them to abandon all party names, and be content to be known by those names only which we find in the New Testament.”

John S. Sweeney: In a book of sermons published by the Gospel Advocate in 1897 this brother gives us a discourse on “Our Aim.” In that sermon he says:

“It is believed by many that denominationalism is the greatest internal foe, and some would even say, the bane of Christianity today. The disciples generally hold this view of it. To build up another denomination of Christians and add it to the long list already in existence, therefore is not the aim of the disciples. And if they ever do so it will be in spite of a much worthier aim with which they started out. On the other hand, candor requires the acknowledgement, that their fun­damental purpose is in its very nature hostile to all denominations, as such; not, of course, to Christians among the denominations, but to denominationalism itself. To build up and maintain a mere denomination, however superior to those already in existence it might be, is not within the scope of their purpose.”

Moses E. Lard: We shall again avail ourselves of few crisp terse sentences from this fearless con­tender for the faith. In this review of Dr. Jeter, page 31, he says:

“But Mr. Campbell does not claim for himself and his brethren that they, as a body, exhaust the meaning of the term'the church, nor that they are the only persons who are members of the church. Hence, no apology can be pleaded for Mr. Jeter’s dishonorable insinuation to the contrary. Mr. Campbell concedes to all, no matter where found, who have been, in the true acceptation of the phrase, ‘born aga

We now see What was the grand purpose of the restoration movement and in getting a clear concep­tion of that purpose we at the same time get the vision of undenominational Christianity: of the holy catholic, undivided church. Of the united host of redeemed souls contending earnestly and in one voice for the faith once for all delivered unto the saints.

Some of us still have this vision and are prayerfully working toward this goal. Christ is our only Master and Lord and his word is our only guide and law. His spirit is our desired disposition and Christ in us is the hope of glory. Substituting the word revelation for nature in Pope’s language, we are Slaves to no sect, who takes no private road, But looks through revelation up to revelation’s God; Pursue that chain which links the immense design? Joins heaven and earth, and mortal and divine.

We strive to be Christians not only in name and claim but in deed and in truth. We strive to be Chris­tians without entangling alliances: We strive for loy­alty without bigotry: for sincerity without sands moniousness: for brotherliness without compromise and for love without limit.

Ye diff’rent sects who all declare
Lo, Christ is here or Christ is there A
nd show me where the Christians live.
S Your stronger proofs divinely give '