099-Prop. 96. The differences visible in the Church are evidences that it is not the predicted Ki...

Prop. 96. The differences visible in the Church are evidences that it is not the predicted Kingdom of the Messiah.

HAVING ALLUDED TO THIS, IT MAY BE WELL TO PARTICULARIZE. THE KINGDOM, AS PROMISED FROM THE DETAILS OF PROPHECY, IS TO EXHIBIT A VISIBLE OUTWARD UNITY. SO MUCH IS THIS ADMITTED BY OUR OPPONENTS, THAT THEY ARE SEEKING FOR AND ADVOCATING SUCH A UNITY. THE FEELING IS ALMOST UNIVERSAL THAT PREDICTION DEMANDS IT; AND HENCE ALL, NOT FINDING IT YET EXISTING, ANTICIPATE IT IN THE FUTURE. ISAIAH 60, 61, 62, 65, ETC., ARE CONCLUSIVE. BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUCH A STATE OR CONDITION HAS NEVER BEEN REALIZED IN THE CHURCH AFTER EIGHTEEN HUNDRED YEARS OF TRIAL, AND THEREFORE WE CONCLUDE THAT THE CHURCH, NOT EXHIBITING THE CHARACTERISTICS PREDICTED OF THE KINGDOM AND CONNECTED WITH ITS ESTABLISHMENT, IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM THAT KINGDOM.

Obs. 1. Let the unbiased student contemplate how schisms, etc., are foretold in the church (Acts 20:29-30; 1 Corinthians 11:19; 2 Timothy 4:3-4; Romans 16:17, etc.); how it was organized amidst dissensions and antagonism even among its leaders (on the subject of circumcision and observance of the law); how it affected compromises concerning the law and the ritual; how it arose without a direct verbal abrogation of Mosaic institutions, so that some followed the latter and others annoyed the Gentiles who refused the same. Christ Himself, Paul tells us, was preached a contention. These and other marks of weakness, infirmity, etc., certainly prevent us from accepting the church as the predicted Kingdom, seeing that the latter is to come in a very different manner. Its beginning (i.e. church’s) is not that assigned by the Prophets to the Kingdom of promise.

Even the Apostolic Church evidenced great infirmities, as noticed in Church Histories by Schaff, Kurtz, Neander, etc. As illustrative, we only quote Conybeare and Howson’s (l c. 1, p. 488) statement: “It is painful to be compelled to acknowledge among the Christians of the Apostolic Age, the existence of so many forms of error and sin. It was a pleasing dream which presented the Primitive Church as a society of angels; it is not without a struggle that we bring ourselves to open our eyes and behold the reality. But yet it is a higher feeling which bids us thankfully to recognize the truth, that ‘there is no partiality with God,’ that He has never supernaturally coerced any generation of mankind into virtue, nor rendered schism and heresy impossible in any age of the Church.” This feature has never been lessened, but has increased until e.g. in England alone, according to “Whitaker’s Almanack” (1879), there are 174 distinct denominations and sects. The notion of a Kingdom is utterly opposed to the predictions relating to the Church, viz.: its militant nature, a fighting and struggling Church, which shall ultimately, by apostatizing (II Thessalonians 2) and by lack of faith (Luke 18:1-8), fall under the power, as a punishment, of a culminated Antichrist, and endure a fearful persecution (e.g. Revelation 14, Daniel 7, etc.).

Obs. 2. The progress of the church teaches the same. Surely a Kingdom established by Jesus in fulfillment of the prophecies could not possibly have the conflicting elements that the church has so lavishly shown. Antagonism in belief, compulsion in requirements, dogmatism in teaching, religious warring, persecution, error, false doctrine, etc., are incorporated with her history. Corruption not merely external, but imbedded in the very framework of her organization, and transmitted for centuries (diversity of Ch. government, belief, and practice); antagonism even in relation to the most important things (sacerdotalism, baptism, Lord’s supper, etc.); exhibition of a spirit hostile to Messiah’s Kingdom, even in the most noble of Christian men [as e.g. Luther’s treatment of Zwingli, Zwingli’s resort to the sword, Calvin’s treatment of Servetus (Mosheim’s His. of Servetus), Melanchthon’s epistle to Calvin, Oct. 14, 1544, commending Servetus’s execution (Calv. Epis. No. 187, p..341,) etc.]-these are landmarks, not of Christ’s Kingdom but of a preparatory stage subject to infirmity, characteristic of all, even of true and noble believers. While here and there enlightened piety exists, willing to fellowship with and acknowledge as brethren in Christ all who repent and believe in Him, yet multitudes, organized bodies, counting their ministry by hundreds and their laity by hundreds of thousands, stand forth in doctrinal exclusiveness, even in the same denomination (as e.g. some of the symbolical Lutherans, High-Church Episcopalians, Close Communion Baptists, etc.), condemning all others, denouncing all others, sitting in Christ’s seat and claiming Christ’s prerogatives of judging, excluding all others of a diverse faith from the Kingdom of heaven, here and hereafter. This is done too by those whom, in spite of their weakness and dogmatism, we must recognize as conscientious brethren in Christ. While the absurdity of such a position, claiming that outside of its own special communion there is no true Church, but only reprobation and damnation, has been ably set forth by numerous writers, yet it is a sad fact that multitudes still slavishly cling to it with tenacity and zeal. Does such a Church, thus divided, etc., bear the imprint of Messiah’s Kingdom? No! never ought such a portraiture as history but too faithfully gives, be mistaken for the divine one presented by the inspired prophets. Blindness voluntarily assumed alone can make such a mistake. The divisions and controversies are not merely between different denominations, but between branches of the same Church, as e.g. between Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Moravians, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Reformed, etc. The lack of union and intercommunion is sometimes most painfully manifested, as e.g. in an exclusive spirit of clericalism or sacramentarianism, which refuses acknowledgment and fellowship with others, and even with each other. All Churches are, more or less, thus leavened. The Roman Catholics, complacently overlooking their past bitter divisions and contests, point to the differences, etc., of Protestantism; Protestantism, overlooking the design intended by the Church, meets the charge by endeavoring to make out an invisible unity, which is truly so “invisible” that no one has yet been able to discern it. Two extremes are to be avoided, both suggested by the Church-Kingdom theory, in contemplating the strange and painful pages of Ecclesiastical History; on the one hand Goethe’s declaration: “Mischmash von Irrthum und von Gewalt,” which looks only at the evidences of infirmity and wickedness; and on the other, Chateaubriand’s painting a beautiful ideal of the past and present, which ignores the corruptions, errors, and sinfulness manifested. Truth suffers by either method; and the Church cannot be utterly condemned or unduly exalted without doing violence to it. Neither blackening nor whitewashing, neither defaming nor extravagantly praising, meets the divine portraiture as given in the Scriptures.

Obs. 3. These differences, division into sects, etc. are not given under the impression that the church has not, in a measure, carried on the design intended by its organization. When the object for which the church has been established is duly estimated, we find that amidst all its weakness and imperfection, prosperity and adversity, fightings within and without, it has been forwarding and accomplishing the same. Hence, we give place to no one in a high appreciation of the church; and yet, in relation to her the truth must be told-indeed has already been recorded-lest we exaggerate her position, and dishonor the truth itself. Ecclesiastical History, Dogmatics, such works as Dorner’s His. of Prot. Theology, etc., give painful evidence that controversies, bitter and unrelenting, have been waged between portions of the church, between good and great men. Passing by the lack of charity, the self-exaltation, the narrowness and bigotry, the confessionalistic zeal, the personal contentions, defamations, etc., we find that in important points, both theoretical and practical, devoted men of God were in direct opposition to each other. Were it not for a few things held in common, such as faith in Christ, the antagonism would be complete. Such a state of things, deplorable as it is, does not vitiate the design to be accomplished by the church, which is, as James asserted in the Apostle’s Council, to gather out a people for His name. This, notwithstanding the hindrances and obstacles mentioned, has been carried on down to the present day. These evils may to some extent have retarded and hindered the work, but still it has been going on toward completion. No age, no century, no year, with its encompassing infirmities, but has brought forth, through the church, the called and adopted. But to convert this design into the Kingdom itself requires an imagination and a faith strong enough to plant-against the direct testimony of holy men of old-these evils, these conflicting elements into the Kingdom of the Son of Man. Whilst this diversity, etc., cannot be charged to the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles (for they warned us against it); whilst it is evidence of the probationary and not kingly condition of the church which could not be avoided without destroying man’s free moral agency, yet they have come to pass, and the church grievously erred in giving place to them. Explanations and apologies do not lessen the naked facts, and cannot break their force. Unbelief may foolishly level them against Christianity, when Christianity itself in the New Testament pointedly condemns it; piety, on the other hand, just as foolishly endeavors to palliate the same by claiming it as a necessity, a requisite historical growth, etc.; still the facts remain, and can only be explained by placing them where the Bible does, viz.: in the depravity and weakness of man. To a considerate mind, the very condition of the Church, instead of reflecting in the slightest degree upon the Divine Truth, most abundantly confirms it; for, without unduly exalting the Church into a Kingdom bearing on its bosom a mass of corruption, he sees that amidst all this diversity, error, hostility, etc., the one great, grand design has never been lost sight of, i.e. to save them that believe. If it be said that these evils are not inherent, but foreign outgrowths, we may even admit this without weakening our argument, seeing that we proceed on the ground that such a picture as the Church has presented is not the one drawn by the prophets. Whether produced legitimately or not, whether necessary developments or not, they resulted in the Church, and as firm believers in divine inspiration, we cannot, dare not receive the Church as the Kingdom predicted by inspired men; for if we do, to that extent do we make those men untruthful and their record of the Kingdom an impossibility to be realized as presented by them (i.e. in the grammatical sense). We cannot e.g. reconcile with the prophetic record of the increased and constantly expanding power of Messiah’s Kingdom, the losses which the Church has sustained in the past in Asia, Africa, Greece, etc. The prophets, instead of losses, give us glorious permanent and eternal retention. Hence, while discarding the notion of the Kingdom, we cling to the observable gracious design of the Church as promised and developed in her history. This gives the proper antidote to a class of books ably written, which artfully, and in many respects most truthfully, represent the weakness, positive evil, incorporated with and extended by the Church, and from this deduce that the prophecies, being unfulfilled, the predictions are merely human opinions. We believe with Lord Bacon, who long ago observed, in answer to the Papal argument of unity, “that the Church of God hath been in all ages subject to contentions and schisms; the tares were not sown but when the wheat was sown before. Our Savior Christ delivered it for an ill-note to have outward peace. And reason teacheth us that in ignorance and implied belief it is easy to agree, as colors agree in the dark; or if any country decline into Atheism, the controversies wax dainty, because men do not think religion scarce worth falling out for; so as it is weak divinity to account controversies an ill sign in the Church.” So long as tares and wheat continue mixed-which is down to the Second Advent-so long will this state continue.

Obs. 4. This leads to a brief consideration of the unity of the church. The notion of a Kingdom attached to it, involves that of unity. To carry out the design of the church does not necessarily require unity; unity indeed would facilitate its execution, and for various reasons it is desirable, and hence is enjoined, but really is not essential, as the history of the church conclusively proves. “Them that believe” are found in all denominations; those that are savingly united to Christ are found in Roman Catholic and Protestant churches; admixture of error, difference in Ch. government, etc., has not prevented, in the opposing camps, persons to become justified by faith, adopted by grace, and engrafted as the elect. The prayer of Christ, so often quoted, for union has special reference to the ultimate end of the church, and is identified with the manifestation of His glory (see Prop. 184). Many contend that union now is essential, or at least necessary. Keeping in view the object intended by this dispensation, we may concede its desirableness to expedite the gathering of the elect, but it is not absolutely requisite for this purpose. At the very commencement of the Christian Church, as every historian concedes, even in the Apostolic age, there was a tendency (even among the Apostles), to diversity, which has continued down to our day, and we are assured by the Word will continue until Christ ushers in the Mill. Kingdom. Just as God has used the peculiar temperament, disposition, style, etc., of men in giving His Word, so He also employs the various temperaments, dispositions, talents, etc., of men in gathering out; but whilst in the former diversity exists without breaking the unity of that Word being under the restraining influence of inspiration, the latter amidst its diversity has no such restraining medium, saving that Word which is already given. Therefore, the unity is not to be sought in the utterances of the church as such, not in its outward external form, not even in its inward experience and feeling, but only in three things: (1) in working out, consciously or unconsciously, a common design, i.e. the salvation of believers; (2) that every member savingly united to Christ, whether recognized or not, whether agreeing in all things with us or not, sustains the relation of brother and joint heir with those who also thus believe; (3) the common relation that all believers sustain to Christ even now, and which is finally to be openly manifested. Therefore, the efforts of those who urge for unity among brethren, without the exclusion of a diversity which is inseparable from a probationary state, are to be commended.

Such as the labors of Dr. Schmucker, the Christian Alliance, and others. The Augsburg Confession, Art. 7, pointedly says: “That subordinate differences do not abolish the unity of the church.” This unity, as the reader sees, does not bear the marks of the covenanted and predicted Kingdom, being more of a spiritual and invisible nature, and preparative to the unity that shall be manifested when the Christ and His members are revealed.