========================================================================
  ABILENE1934 LECTURES
  by Abilene Christian College
========================================================================

The annual Abilene Christian College Lectureship for 1934, featuring a series of
sermons, lectures, and addresses by prominent preachers and teachers in the
Churches of Christ on themes of faith, doctrine, and Christian living.

  Chapters: 14

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. -Introduction
    2. -The New Testament Church In Apostolic Times
    3. -The Church in The Ante-Nicene Period
    4. -The Church in Conflict With Pagan Philosophy
    5. -The Church and a Clerical Hierarchy
    6. -The Church During the Dark Ages
    7. -The Protestant Reformation and the Church
    8. -The Church and Protestantism
    9. -The Church and Denominationalism
   10. -The Church and Sectarianism
   11. -The Modern Schism in the Church
   12. -A Plea for Unity
   13. -Ideals and Purposes of Abilene Christian College
   14. -How Abilene Christian College Realizes Its Ideals

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: -INTRODUCTION
========================================================================

Introduction

Introduction The theme for the Lectures for 1934, “The New Testament Church in
History,” is a very timely one and follows naturally the theme of the 1933
Lectures, “The Church We Read About in the New Testament.”

There is no subject that is so vital in our work as Christians today as a proper
understanding of the great spiritual kingdom of our Savior, the church which was
built by Jesus Christ. It is a hard lesson to teach because all people are so
dull of hearing con­cerning things spiritual. Just as Nicodemus marveled when
the Christ told him. of the spiritual kingdom so do people today wonder and
marvel when they are told that there is only one great church, the spiritual
kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and that all the saved of earth
belong to that church and that belonging to anything else profits little, and is
unnec­essary. Not only are numbers of denominational churches and people who
have no religious affiliation ignorant of the true meaning of the church, but
even those who claim to be members of the one body are lacking in understanding
concerning the kingdom of Christ.

It is therefore the purpose of the Abilene College Lectures last year, this year
and ne_xt year to arouse a greater interest in the study and the teaching of
this very vital matter. In this particular volume much valuable information is
brought together on the trials and struggles of the church from its foundations
to the present. The speak­ers have made careful preparation on their subjects
and have given lessons that should prove helpful to all who desire to have a
better understanding of the church. Our prayer is that these Lectures may be
read by many and that they may do much good in the name of the Christ.

JAS. F. COX, President, Abilene Christian College.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: -THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH IN APOSTOLIC TIMES
========================================================================

The New Testament Church In Apostolic Times THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH IN
APOSTOLIC TIMES J. P. Crenshaw A Cross Section On the first Pentecost, after the
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, in the city of Jerusalem, the
Spirit-filled apostles preached the gospel of Christ for the first time. Some of
them that heard, gladly accepted the word, and were baptized. And the Lord added
them to his church. Thus the New Testament church in apostolic times came into
existence—a per­fect institution—a God-given means of joining Chris­tians
together in an association that truly means much to us as we attempt to develop
in the “grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Can we find in
our world of to-day the same church ? May we hold up before us to-day this New
Testament church and examine it? Look right through it. See a cross section of
it. Then see if one just like it can be found among men to-day. The Doctrine:
Jesus had told his disciples to “go teach all nations,” “Go preach the gospel to
every creature.” They understood that the salvation of men and women was
absolutely contingent upon their hear­ing the gospel. Not only so, but the
apostles realized that this gospel of Christ was the only thing that peo­ple did
have to hear to be saved. So today if we see the New Testament church,—-that
church will not only be preaching the gospel of Christ, but will be preach­ing
absolutely nothing else—no politics, no book reviews, no sermons or prayers
designed to make people believe that they may be saved in some way apart from
this Word. Hear Peter, “Brethren, ye know how that a good while ago, God made
choice among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel
and believe” (Acts 15:7). This hearing had to produce faith in the heart of the
hearer, as a condition of his salvation, when the apostles preached. It is so
today. This church, if we find it now, will be preaching that people must have
faith to be acceptable to God (Hebrews 11:6); and teach­ing that this faith
comes only through the word of God and from no other source, and in no other
way. “Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).
“Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples that are not
written in this book, but these are written that you might believe that Jesus is
the Christ, the Son of God and that believing ye might have life through His
name” (John 20:30-31). And when an individual hears in this gospel how
wonderfully good God has been to him, he will be moved to repent of any and all
of his sins. Listen! “Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and
forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee
to repentance?” (Romans 2:4). And again, “Except ye repent ye shall all
like­wise perish” (Luke 13:3). Once I come to see and meditate upon what God and
His Son suffered to bring to me the opportunity of my salvation, I will truly
repent of having transgressed his law in any particular.

Confess: And, oh, how happy I shall be to confess His name before men and claim
of Him his promise to confess me before his Father when such identification will
mean more than all the world to me. Jesus said : “Whosoever, therefore, shall
confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in
heaven” (Matthew 10:32). When Philip listened to the eunuch confess his faith,
he asked no large number of questions as is the modern custom; he asked for and
heard just one great fact, brought to the heart of this man by listening to the
preaching of Christ to him: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”
(Acts 8:37).

These same apostles, when they heard Jesus say “he that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16), realized that they were listening to the
author of eternal salvation, state the conditions upon which he would save. Thus
we find that in every case re­corded in the Bible of anyone being added to the
New Testament church in apostolic times, that individual was a penitent,
baptized believer. They at no time intimated that one could be saved without
being bap­tized into Christ (Galatians 3:27).

This, my friends, is a brief statement of the doctrine of the New Testament
church in apostolic times. Any religious body to-day, claiming to be this same
church, must be found, upon close examination, to teach exactly this same
doctrine.

New Testament Church in Worship. In this matter, as in all other teaching, the
Holy Spirit guided the apostles into all truth. The Lord’s Supper. The New
Testament church assembled on the first day of the week to eat the Lord’s Supper
(Acts 20:7). The eating of this supper was direct command of the Lord (Luke
22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25). The day of assembly, and all the items included
in this worship were divinely ordered. This supper commemorates the tragedy of
Calvary. With our minds fixed on the price Jesus paid for our redemp­tion,
thinking of the awful loneliness of his soul when there went up from his broken
heart the cry, “My God, my God! why hast Thou forsaken me,” we partake of this
loaf and this fruit of the vine in memory of him, and proclaim to the world the
fact that he is coming again. No martyr ever had to die for the faith, with the
face of the Heavenly Father turned from him; but Jesus had to do that. What were
the pangs that Christ endured? I cannot tell you. Terrible was the physical side
of it; but much more heart rending is the fact that when Jesus took upon himself
sin, God could not look with any pleasure upon him. The height, the length, the
depth and breadth of what Jesus endured, no heart can guess, no tongue can tell,
nor can imagination picture. God only knows the grief to which the Son was
brought. Is it any wonder that tears come to our eyes and our hearts overflow
when we avail ourselves of this blessed privilege of meeting with him at his
table?

(b) Fellowship. From 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 and Acts 2:42, and other passages, we
learn that an important part of the worship under inspiration, was the giving of
their means to the furtherance of the Lord’s work. From all that God had given
them they gladly and with forethought—and with deliberate purpose in their
hearts faithfully laid by in store a generous por­tion of their money, into a
common fund for the preach­ing of the gospel and the helping of the poor saints.
Beloved, do we to-day portray faithfully before the world the New Testament
church in this particular?

(c) Prayer. They made great use of the God- given privilege and indispensable
Christian duty of prayer, in worship to God. “We ought always to pray, and not
to faint” (Luke 18:1). And again, “Be anxious in nothing, but in everything by
prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests to made known unto
God” (Php_4:6).

(d) Praise in Song. Christians are commanded to praise in song. These very
familiar scriptures on this subject (Ephesians 5:15-20; Colossians 3:16) show
beyond ques­tion that this music of praise is purely vocal and speaks, teaches
and admonishes. We must sing with the spirit and with the understanding (1
Corinthians 14:15). Did you sing your last song that way?

(e) Preaching. Preaching of the gospel was the prime purpose of the church in
apostolic times and, of course, this statement needs no argument, or
expla­nation as an item of worship. Jesus had told these men to “Go teach all
nations .......go preach the gospel to every creature” (Matthew 28:19 and Mark
16:15-16). This preaching was never neglected in the New Testament church, even
though you may find it neg­lected now by our brethren, to the hurt of Christian
people, and the eternal loss of souls round about them. Thus we find the worship
as well as the doctrine of the New Testament church in apostolic times, clearly
set forth in the word of God. But may we pause just here to observe: Worship, is
to be acceptable to God, must be in spirit as well as in truth (John 4:24). How
wonderfully well suited to our hearts are these items of worship. Each thing
done, lifts our hearts closer in tune with the great heart of God. A king once
built a beautiful mansion and at one end of the long dining hall, had a
magnificent harp built. Some years later the prince moved into this castle and
when the strings of the long unused harp were struck, it was found that discord
resulted. It was hopelessly out of tune. From all over the kingdom the best
musicians were brought and, one by one, they attempted to tune the harp. After
each effort the re­sult was the same,—still out of tune. One evening about
sundown, an old man stopped at the gate of the castle and asked for food and
shelter. He was kindly received by the Prince and invited into the dining hall.
After the supper, the old man looked at the great harp, covered and still, and
asked why it was kept so cov­ered. The Prince replied it was out of tune, and
that despite his best efforts, no one had been found who was able to tune it.
The old man asked permission to try his hand at it. Some hours later, the Prince
and his family were called in, and the old man began to touch the strings, and
tone after tone, melody and perfect harmony filled the room. In amazement the
Prince demanded to know how this old traveller was able to accomplish what so
many others had been un­able to do. The old man said: “Young man, I made that
harp, I built every string in it, I put it there where it stands.”

Beloved, we need worship to keep us in tune. The God that made your heart and
mine will keep us in tune if we place ourselves in his presence and keep
ourselves there.

We have hastened over these familiar thoughts— vital though they are. Brethren,
our doctrine is unas­sailable! It has been contradicted by the command­ments of
men; it has been questioned in debate by the leading minds of denominational
preachers in every age. Being founded entirely on God’s word has made it
altogether safe from every attack. Our worship, based on the same simple truth
has stood, and will stand the test of all criticism. Being thus fortified by
Scripture at every turn, do we present to the world to-day a perfect New
Testament church? Can we challenge them to show one principle we lack? Are we
perfectly willing to say, “Bring your measuring rod, the infallible Word, and
measure us as we stand to-day—in us you will find a perfect replica of the New
Testament Church?” When we approach this thought, we are forced to remember that
after all, Christianity is an individual matter. That New Testament church was
just a group of individual Christians. Each mem­ber had a place in it and that
church was just what its members were. The Savior one time was approached by a
man who was much concerned about his eternal welfare. After the man had
testified as to his careful observance of all the commandments, Jesus told that
individual “one thing thou lackest.” Would our Lord have to make a like
statement to us ? I confess to you this morning, that with a perfect doctrine, a
God-given worship, I am persuaded that the church is not reaching the world with
the power of God to save as it should. No question can be raised as to the
present power of the gospel we preach. It is just as powerful to-day, just as
potent to save as it was when Peter, James, John, and Paul preached it. I am
suggesting to you that we are lacking in one thing and that thing is the spirit
of the New Testament church.

Appreciation. It meant something to a Christian of that day, that while he was
yet a sinner; while he knew in his own heart that he had in no way merited such
a sacrifice, Jesus Christ had died to make his salvation possible: “Who, being
in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made
himself of no reputation, and took upon himself the form of a servant, and was
made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he hum­bled
himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross”
(Php_2:6-8). That kind of a Savior—one who not only could, but would take upon
himself, who knew no sin, every mistake and sin com­mitted by each penitent,
baptized believer, and remove from him, sins which would forever separate him
from his God—meant something to that New Testament Christian in apostolic times.
Do we appreciate what Jesus has done for us as much as it was appreciated by
those early Christians? I mean to ask, do we noticeably stand out, before the
world, as men and women who have been bought and paid for by the blood of the
Son of God; people who feel toward God like Paul did when he, speaking of God,
added this language “Whose I am and whom I serve” (Acts 27:23). They not only
were moved with deep admiration for what Jesus had done for them individually,
but a growing realization of what he would do for them day after day, in their
walk in his service, warmed their hearts with an appreciation that was
noticeable to those with whom they came in contact. “If we walk in the light as
he is in the light we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus
Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). It is truly wonderful to
have all our past sins forgiven, then to add to that, the actual knowledge that
the same blood will continue to cleanse, to remit sin, was then and is now
enough to stir in the breast of a man a determination to walk in the light of
God’s word, a determination that nothing this world has to offer, could ever
alter. “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And
if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous.
And he is the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:1-2).

Beautiful thought! He not only tvas but is daily our Saviour from the death that
sin deserves. This thought caused them to walk separate and apart from the world
and it ought to arouse in your heart and mine a similar appreciation of such a
Savior.

Let us take one more step. Not only a deliverer from the past sins, and the
present mistakes, but when our life here is ended the provider of a “house not
made with hands, a home eternal in the heavens” (2 Corinthians 5:1) If a man
gives any serious thought at all to the life that follows this one, if he has a
heart in his breast, he will be moved, and touched and tendered at this passage:

“I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you I will
come again, and receive you unto myself: that where I am, there ye may be also”
(John 14:2-3).

Those early Christians were carried by such thoughts as these, through trials
such as we can only imagine. Do these words mean as much to us as they meant to
them ? Have they changed our lives like they transformed theirs?

Such an appreciation of their salvation from sin gave birth to a great desire to
serve this Savior. Do we feel it as they felt it ? Is this desire as strong with
us as it was with them?

One day John the Baptist pointed out to two of his disciples, Jesus. “One of the
two which heard John speak, and fol­lowed him was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, ‘We have found the
Messiah, which is being in­terpreted, the Christ.’ And he brought him to Jesus”
(John 1:41-42).

Look at what Peter afterwards accomplished. If that act were the only worthwhile
thing Andrew ever did, his life was a grand success. He brought to the Savior a
man who would live and die to serve men for whom Jesus died. Later in the same
chapter we read: “Philip findeth Nathaniel, and saith unto him, ‘We have found
Him of whom Moses in the Law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth,
the son of Jos­eph’ ” (John 1:45).

These men exercised the spirit that, after the church was established, made them
really great in service. Paul, an inspired member of the New Tstament church
expressed this thought in language that will impress' every honest reader: “I am
debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians: both to the wise and to the
unwise. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are
at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power
of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first and also to
the Greek” (Romans 1:14-16). If we could only feel our appreciation as keenly as
Paul felt it, we would be moved with the spirit that animated him, and serve our
Lord at any cost. Paul felt that his salvation obligated him to the extent that
he owed a debt to every unsaved soul he could possibly reach. He like Abraham
was blessed to bless Genesis 12:2). Paul not only says that he was working on
the payment of the debt, but that he was ready to preach the gospel anywhere and
not ashamed of it in any company, at any time. Are we ready? I am looking into
the faces of men and women who have for years worn the name of Christ and have
never, nor could you now, take your Bible and quietly point out to some earnest
soul the very passages in God’s word that teach them what to do to be saved.
Were our appreciation keener, our desire to serve would'be stronger.

Spirit of Humility. It seems that some peculiarity of human nature causes men
and women who know that their doctrine and worship can be read word for word
from the Bible, to become somewhat impatient and even unreasonable with those
who possibly have not enjoyed the same favorable circumstances that helped them
learn what scripture they know. If, in­stead of judging by comparison with some
of my less fortunate neighbors I would compare myself to those New Testament
church members I will come to feel my littleness. When I think of Paul, I do not
think I labor very hard or suffer very much. When I think of Peter, I do not
seem very courageous. Compared to John I am not very gentle. The humility that
will grow from such thoughts will not hinder my actions in the cause of the Lord
but will increase my activities. When men and women can tell with certainty that
we do not think of ourselves more highly than we ought to think, that spirit
will enable us to reach them and touch and tender their lives with the gospel. A
cer­tain congregation which had among its elders one who was rich and inclined
to be a little stingy, was without a preacher and sent for one to come with a
view to locating with them. The minister found his text in the twelfth chapter
of Luke, verses thirteen to twenty- one. As he reached the conclusion of the
record of the rich man who forgot to put God into his plans, the rich elder said
“that is not the man we want for this work.” A few Sundays later another
minister preached for them and took his lesson from the same scripture. As he
concluded a very similar lesson, as far as the facts stated were concerned, this
rich elder said, “That is the man we need.” Being- pressed for the reason for
liking the second message better, he replied: “The first minister preached like
my money was going to send me to perdition, and he did not much care if it did;
but the second man preached like my money was going to send me to perdition, and
he just could hardly stand to see me go—it broke his heart for me to be lost.”
That is the spirit of the New Tes­tament church. Maybe it could all be summed up
under the head of love. If we really love the Lord who died for us, we can
hardly stand to see a man made in his image, lost from him forever. When we
consider the fact that Jesus left a perfect heaven, and came to this
sin-stricken land of suffering and death, to die without even the appreciation
of those for whom the sacrifice was being made; when we think that all he could
hope to gain, the only thing to be added to the joy he had before he left
heaven, was just your presence and mine, our love for our Savior wells up within
us until we feel like we really have caught the spirit of New Testament
Christianity. May God help you and me to get a conception of the spirit of the
apostles; may we work like they worked, may we live like they lived, may we
serve like they served, and may we love like they loved.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: -THE CHURCH IN THE ANTE-NICENE PERIOD
========================================================================

The Church in The Ante-Nicene Period THE CHURCH IN THE ANTE-NICENE PERIOD Homer
Hailey

Brethren and friends: It is the purpose of this study to cover the first two
hundred fifty years of the history of the church, following the apostles, in the
short time of thirty minutes or an hour. As we now find ourselves in the second
century of the great Res­toration movement, let us consider carefully the
his­tory of the early church, that it’s mistakes may become lessons to us, in
steering us around the pitfalls into which it fell. The period discussed tonight
will begin with the close of apostolic Christianity, and conclude with the
council of Nice, 325 A. B'. Let us approach it from five points: (1) The Roman
world when Christianity just out of its swaddling-cloth, faced it; socially,
mor­ally, and politically. (2) Persecutions of the Christians. (3) The departure
from apostolic organization, and the rise of ecclesiasticism. (4) Heresies versu
orthodoxy. (5) Constantine, and the Council of Nice, 325 A. D. The Roman World
Rome had completed her conquests of the world, She was now making a desperate
effort to hold what she had gained. The two most prominent groups of people were
the wealthy and the slaves; with a third, or middle class of free citizens,
which had lost its moral and phy­sical vigor, and had sunk to an inerfj mass.
The wealthy, made rich by the conquests of foreign coun­tries, reveled in vice
and luxury, spending fortunes on dress and tables. Their homes were large and
luxuri­ous, surrounded by extensive gardens, kept by slaves. The poorer classes
only lived for the “bread and circuses,” which were supplied out of the public
treas­ury. The circuses were brutal, debasing, and bloody; hundreds of animals
from all parts of the world, and many men, were slain annually in them for the
amuse­ment of a debased people. During persecutions, Chris­tians were supplied
to the animals during the shows. The nation groaned under heavy taxation, that
went for such a waste and extravagance. Slaves supplied the labor, which forced
into exclusion healthy middle class wage earning; these often revolted in time
of trouble, to join the enemy. The state came first, the home had little place
in Paganism. Women were considered as chattel prop­erty ; and little children
were often cruelly mistreated; and if born deformed, or the parents did not want
them, they were exposed to die, or killed. A father might so punish a child as
to cause its death without molesta­tion. Divorces were unknown in the early days
of Roman growth, but by this period very common. It is said that during the days
of Augustus it was difficult to find virgin priestesses for the Temple of Vesta;
while in Athens there was the Temple of Aphrodite, one of vice and shame. The
vices, cruelty, and extravagance of most of the emperors are enough to make us
shudder. Nero, the synonym for cruelty; Commodus, with his two hundred
concubines, and who lavished a large fortune to bring animals to Rome from all
parts of the world that he might slay them; the effeminate Elagabalus, who wore
women’s attire, and married a profligate youth like himself. To crown the folly
of it all, the vice and folly of them was immortalized at their death by the
Senate, by statues and temples being erected and dedi­cated to their memory; and
placed among those of the gods, to be worshipped. Of course, not all were
immortalized in such a way, but most were. The cruelty and wickedness of the
wives of the Emperors fell little behind that of their husbands. There were
exceptions, such as Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurel­ius ; but these were rare.
The Empire was ruled by men placed at its head by the army, which was made up of
the most brutal of the Empire, the head of the government falling into a
military despostism. For near two hundred years, the throne became a prize to
the favorite or most powerful general. One might be raised to the place of
Empeior, slain, and replaced, as the whims of the soldiers directed. Of course
the soldiers gen­erally received large donations from the man whom they
elevated. The senate gradually declined into a mere figure and shadow. The
philosophers and religion of the gods offered no hope, nor comfort, to such a
condition. Both were void of such characteristics as love, hope, kindness, etc.
The religions deified the base and sensual; the philosophies were gloomy and
uncertain in their tenets. Little that was elevating or calculated to inspire
hap­piness was found in either; the crimes of Romans the first chapter, were
practiced in both Rome and Greece; the gods even being guilty of them.

It was into such a morally degenerate, sensual, and cruel world that
Christianity was thrust, to conquer and raise to a fit place in which to live;
freeing it from the clutches of sin and the power of darkness and superstition;
with its only power to conquer resting in its faith in a “crucified and raised
Savior,” which was “foolishness to the gentiles, and a stumblingblock to the
Jews.”

Persecutions of the Church The persecution of the church had its origin in
mis­taking Christianity as a form of Judaism, and an off­spring of Jewish
fanaticism, by the Emperors. Chris­tians are first heard of in the history of
Suetonius, 52 A. D., when they were driven out of Rome by Claudius, who
evidently mistook them for Jews. The first great persecution was under Nero, the
last of the family of Julius Caesar, about the year 64. Such a persecution was
consistent with his nature: he had murdered his brother, mother Agrippina, and
teacher, Seneca; with many eminent Roman citizens. He was suspected of the
origin of the great fire of Rome in 64, which lasted nine days, but he charged
it to the Christians to avert suspicion. In the persecution multitudes were
killed for the faith, and it was wound up by Nero nailing Christians to pine
posts, covering them with oil, pitch, and resin, and lighting fire to them while
he, dressed as a charioteer, rode among them in mockery, as at a circus.

Vespasian was sent to Palestine by Nero, in the year 67, with 60,000 men, to
subdue the Jews, but upon the death of Nero, he was recalled and made Emperor in
69. This lifting of the siege gave the Chris­tians of Jerusalem an opportunity
to flee, as they had been instructed by the Savior. Vespasian sent his son,
Titus, in the year 70, who destroyed the city and temple. Josephus graphically
describes the hor­rors of the siege; with its famine and deep misery.

After the death of Nero, the Christians suffered little at the hands of Rome,
until Domitian (89-96), who was extremely bitter against them, confiscating
their property, and putting many to death. Tradi­tion holds that it was during
his persecution that John was banished to Patmos; but some scholars differ,
affirming from internal evidence of the Revelation that it was under Nero that
he was banished. Nerva followed Domitian, who humanely allowed the ban­ished
Christians to return to their homes.

It was the opposition of Trajan who followed Nerva, that occasioned the letters
between Pliny, governor of Bithynia, and the Emperor, as to just how to handle
the Christians. These letters reveal the humility, purity, and simplicity of the
Christian life and worship, from the pen of a pagan persecutor.

It is impossible in this short time to mention all, but will just touch the high
spots in the persecu­tions: Hadrian (117-138) erected pagan temples over the
sites of the temple and the crucifixion in Jerusa­lem, thereby insulting both
Christianity and Juda­ism, in his zeal for state religion. Marcus Aurelius
(161-180), was the most kind, benevolent, and hu­man of the Roman Emperors, but
despised Chris­tianity. This feeling resulted in a most bloody per­secution; it
was in this that Justin Martyr perished. Some of the fairest flowers of
martyrdom, and most heart rending stories, are discovered in the perse­cution of
Septimus Severus (193-211).

Persecutions continued under most of the Emper­ors, some extremely severe,
others milder, until the reign of Gallienus (260-268), at the beginning of which
the church had peace, which lasted about forty years, until 303.

It was during this period of peace that large church edifices began being built;
and the church became quarrelsome, worldly, and rich. The first two cen­turies,
the church met in homes, caves, and wher­ever they could, for worship; but they
now began to build large and costly Du doings over the country. One of the
finest was erected at Nocomedia, the de­struction of which was the introduction
of the per­secution of Diocletian. The last and most severe great persecution
was that of Diocletian from 303 to 311. Diocletian was persuaded by his
co-regent, Galerius, to begin it}. Ihe burning of the church building at
Nocomedia was the introduction of this fiercest of persecutions, which proved to
be the life and death struggle be­tween Christianity and Paganism, resulting in
the triumph of Christianity. But the triumph proved to be the beginning of its
“Babylonian captivity,” as it became popular, being made the state religion
under Constantine who succeeded Diocletian and Max- entius. He restored the
churches, and gave every man freedom of worship. The “freedom” granted might not
imply what we think of now, but it was freedom as compared to what the church
had been going through.

Another great battle the church was fighting at the same time, was that against
pagan and heathen philos­ophy; this is to be discussed by another speaker. The
Rise of Ecclesiasticism In organization, the church passed from apostolic, with
its bishops or presbyters, and deacons over the local eongiogation to the olid
Catholic episcopal system; this passed into the Metropolitan; and this into the
patriarchal after the fourth century. Here the Greek Catholic church stopped;
the Latin went a step farther to the papal monarchy. The earliest church fathers
use the terms “bishop” and “presbyter” indiscriminately"; but a distinction
between the two can be traced to the second century. The exclusiveness of the
term “bishop” grew out of the presidency or chairmanship of the presbytery; the
next step was to consider the episcopate as successors to the apostles. Some
endeavor to trace the distinction to John at Ephesus, but the Bible conveys no
such dis­tinction. In the writings of Ignatius, (d. 107 or 115), episco­pacy is
connected with the local congregation, not the diocese. It is seen as a new and
growing institution, not of apostolic origin.

Irenaeus, about 180, represents the institution as dio­cesan ; and a
continuation of the Apostolate. But even he does not clearly distinguish the two
names.

Old Catholic episcopacy reached its maturity in Cyp­rian, Bishop of Carthage,
who was martyred 258. He is, by some historians, called “the father of the
hier­archy.” He conceded that the Bishop of Romo held the chair of St. Peter;
yet he addressed him as a “col­league,” and later took issue with him over the
subject of heretical baptism; clearly showing that he did not consider him
greater than himself in the church. This system placed the Bishop over a
diocese. The next step was the “Metropolitans,” or large city Bishops, who were
higher than the “country bishops,” who in turn came between the metropolitans
and the presbyters. The churches planted by the apostles stood highest
especially Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Corinth. The bishops of such
large cities being known as “Metropolitans.” The “Patriarchs” grew out of the
bishops of the capitols of the world, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch; and a short
time later, Jerusalem and Constantinople. These were bishops of the large
dioceses, the “Patri­archs” constituting the head. Rome later took the only step
left, that to the papacy, with universal authority. The Greek church retained
the rule of the Patriarchs.

Rome, by the middle of the third century, had one bishop, forty-six presbyters,
seven deacons, seven sub­deacons, forty-two acolyths, and readers, exorcists,
and doorkeepers, fifty-two; and more than fifteen hundred widows, needy and
afflicted. The distinction between clergy and laity had its rise in the third
century, but Cyprian may be called the father of the Sacredotal conception of
ministers as the mediating agency between God and man. He also applied the term
“priest” to the ministers. There is, however, no trace of clerical vestures till
the fourth century. The rise of ecclesiastical power and councils go hand in
hand. There is no distinct trace of councils till the middle of the second
century. From that time synods are found varying in size from diocesan on
Oecumen­ical ; the first (and last) oecumenical council being that of Nice, in
325, called by Constantine. The earliest were small, gradually growing larger,
till they culmi­nate in the one at Nice.

Discipline, which was very strict in the church of this period, gave rise to
many schisms; most of these beginning with the question of what to do with the
“lapsed,” those who had denied Christ during the se­vere persecutions. These
disputes resulted in two groups, the extremely rigid, and the lax. The Rise of
Heresies Before studying the various heresies, let us notice briefly Asceticism,
which had its rise in this period. Asceticism in general is a rigid outward
self-discipline, by which the spirit strives after full dominion over the flesh,
and a superior grade of virtud. Paul of Thebes, who is traced back to the middle
of the third century, is the oldest. St. Anthony may be called the real father
of the Monks, but he belongs to the age of Constantine. Heretical asceticism has
its beginning in heathen philosophy; while “orthodox” asceticism finds its
support in the over-straining of certain scrip­tures. Martyrdom, poverty, and
celibacy became marks of piety.

Celibacy of the clergy was preferred in the Ante- Nicene period, but was not
enforced by law; many of the prominent church fathers being married. The
catacombs testify to the marriage of the clergy down to the fifth century.
Clerical celibacy was not instan- aneous, but like other departures, gradual.
The first step toward it was the prohibition of second marriage; the second
step, the prohibition of conjugal intercourse “after” ordination, (councils of
304 to 314); the third step, the “absolute prohibition” of clerical marriage.
The Roman church here took the lead, by “popes” from 385 to 590. The Council of
Nice did forbid the living together of clergy and unmarried women, which was
being practiced by many.

MONTANISM, which was born in the villages of Asia Minor, and spread west, found
its leading light in Tertullian, who was converted to its teaching about 201 or
202. It lasted till the sixth century. In its doctrine, it agreed in all
essential points with “orthodoxy,” but its peculiarities made it heretical. It
taught that the church at this time was in the “Paraclete” stage, with
revelation, miracles, miracu­lous gifts, and prophesy; with the millennium,
which they made very materialistic, and the end of the world near. Rigorous
fasting and ascetic exercises were rigidly practiced. These also went to the
extreme in legalism and discipline; holding seven sins as unpardonable; and
refusing fallen penitents back into their fellowship. Their reputation was badly
hurt because of the failure of a number of their prophesies to materialize.

NAZARENES AND EBIONITES. The Naza- renes were a sect of Jewish Christians who
also observed the law. The Ebionites were a sect of the Nazarenes. These
considered Jesus as the promised Messiah; yet a mere man like Moses and David,
springing from Joseph and Mary by natural genera­tion. Circumcision and the
observance of the law were made essential to salvation. Paul was rejected as an
apostate and heretic; and his epistles disre­garded. These taught that Christ
was soon to return and introduce the Millennial reign, wih Jerusalem as the seat
of power. There were many sects of tjhese, holding widely differing doctrines on
many points, but generally united on these.

GNOSTICISM. “As to its substance, Gnosticism is chiefly of heathen decent”
(Schaff). It is a pecu­liar translation of heathen philosophies into
Chris­tianity; and an attempt to reconcile these altogether differing
philosophies into one. It is a mixture of Oriental mysticism, Greek philosophy,
Judaism, and Christian ideas of salvation. Its flourishing period was the second
century.

There are many schools and sects of the Gnos­tics mentioned in history, but
there are a few char­acteristics common to all gnosticism: (1) Dualism: the
assumption of an eternal antagonism between God and matter. (2) The demiurgic
notion; that is, the separation of the creator of the world, or the demiurgos,
from the proper God. Jehovah of the Old Covenant was held as only a demiurgos.
There were a number between the Supreme God and man. (3) Doeetism; the
resolution of the human element of the Savior into mere deceptive appearance, i.
e., there was no matter associated with him, that was only an appearance.
Gnosticism is an attempt to answer the origin of God, the world, etc., and to
cor­relate the existence of good and evil. I do not have time here to enter in
its theology.

Tradition traces the origin of this sect to Simon MJagus of Acts 8; which paints
a very ugly picture of him and his later life. Cerinthus, said to have lived
contemporarily with John at Ephesus, is claimed as one of the early fathers of
the sect. These are the earliest. Many others flourished later. Mani, the father
of the latest school of them, and the most dan­gerous sect, is said to have been
flayed alive by the order of the Persian Emperor, skinned, and his hide stuffed
and placed by the gate of the city; but his religion spread all the more
rapidly.

CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. The rise of Gnosticism and heresies, and the fight with the
pure paganism, gave rise to apologetics and polemics; with a wide difference in
views within the church itself. The Greek theology was speculative and
idealistic; deal­ing with the objective doctrines of God, the incar­nation, the
trinity, and Christology. The Latin, es­pecially that of North Africa, is more
realistic and practical, concerned witjh the doctrines of human nature and
salvation. (Questions of disipline, the “trinity,” and the hereafter, were all
questions that gave rise to many heated disputes and arguments; and went far in
giving shape to the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic church. We shall only
give time to the discussion of one, the “trinity”, which led to the Council of
Nice.

Constantine, and the Council of Nice The Arian controversy, which had its
beginning in Alexandria over the question of the equality and co-existence of
the members of the “trinity,” led to the first Oecumenical Council, and the
universal “or­thodox” Nicene Creed.

Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, was asking his presbyters questions concerning
the co-existence of the Father and the Son, claiming the “Son was unbe­gotten as
the Father,” having been with him through all eternity. Arius disputed with him,
claiming “the Father existed before the Son, being without begin­ning.” The
dispute became warm and bitter, result­ing in the anathematizing and
excommunicating of Arius by Alexander about 320 or 321. Arius and his followers
went to Caesarea, to Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea and also the noted historian;
and from thence to Nicomedia, to another Eusebius, Bishop of that city. These
two noted bishops espoused his cause, and exchanged many letters with other
bish­ops. Feelings began to run high, churches w'ere divided; and Christianity
became a joke ;among the Pagans.

Constantine, upon the death of his father in 306, had gradually risen by victory
after victory over his enemies and opponents, to the place of Emperor over the
whole empire, by the year 323. The character of this Emperor, and champion of
the Christian faith, is many sided and complex. In his younger years he had been
very favorable toward the new and grow­ing religion; claiming in later years to
have been converted to the faith by a vision of a cross in the sky, with these
words in Greek under it, “By this conquer,” which appeared to him with another
vision in his sleep, on the eve of one of his most important battles. However,
the monarch did not submit to baptism until he was on his dying bed, the year
337. Nevertheless, during life, he was permitted to all the privileges of a
member of the church, without being formally recognized as one.

Desirous of the peace of his people, and the church, he was induced to write
letters to Alexander con­cerning the trouble in the church, which culminated in
the Council of Nice, called by himself. Constan­tine sent invitations to the
bishops of the Empire, inviting them to come at the expense of the govern­ment.
The great assembly convened about the mid­dle of June, with about 318 bishops
present, accord­ing to the best authorities, and a large multitude of
presbyters, deacons, and attendants. Athanasisus, a young and aspiring deacon in
the church at Alexan­dria, became known as the “Father of orthodoxy” by his
opposition to Arius in the controversy. (He was made Bishop of Alexandria at the
death of Alex­ander.)

Constantine presided; pomp and splendor pre­vailed ; a marked contrast to the
position of the church in former years. The Emperor publicly burned the letters
sent him by the bishops previous to the meet­ing, with the statement that he was
no judge. Creeds were introduced as bases of compromise, but the accusers of
Arius wanted one that he and his follow­ers, known as “Arians,” would oppose; it
was found in the word “consubstantial,” which he opposed on the ground that it
was not scriptural. It was just what the “orthodox” wanted, hence put in the
creed. All but five signed it; many under force from fear; it was a forced
union. Arius and his followers were ex-com­municated; and his books burned; but
Constantine later became favorable to him, and forced the Bishop of Alexandria
to recognize him. This is the first in­stance of civil punishment in the church;
but the fore­runner of the church of the dark ages.

Another question settled at this council, was the question of Easter. Previous
to this time the Eastern and Western churches had been observing the season at
different times, and with no particular Sunday on which to observe it. The time
was definitely deter­mined at this council. The Council adjourned about the
middle of August. “The Creed of Creeds” had been born; Christianity had become
the state religion; “orthodoxy” had taken definite form; and civil and
ecclesiastical governments were joining hands.

Just a few words remain to be said. In this period of history we see the dying
embers of paganism and heathenism as they are fanned into a few flickering
flames, to be extinguished by the onrushing flood of Christianity; but we also
see the. bright light of a pure simple faith, in its conquest, becoming
contami­nated and defiled by the world it is conquering; to supplant in later
years with “Papal” Rome, what it was conquering in “Pagan” Rome. We see a world
bathed in the blood of innocent men and women, as their life is poured out for
the faith of their hearts in the “death and resurrection” of their Savior; and
denial of the “gods.” We should learn the lesson of the ease and patience with
which apostasy creeps upon the “faithful”; and the absolute necessity of
“speaking as the oracles of God”; retaining the simplicity, beauty, and purity
of Christianity, as delivered by the apos­tles, guided by the Holy Spirit. Let
each one “Con­tend earnestly for the faith, once for all delivered unto the
saints” (Jude 1:3), that in “all things” God may be glorified.

(Authorities relied upon for the facts of this article: “Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire,” Gibbons, Vols. 1, 2. “History of the Christian Church,” Philip
Schaff, Vols. 1, 2, 3. “Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical His­tory,” Christian Frederick
Cruse, translator. And “Church of the First Three Centuries,” Lamson).


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: -THE CHURCH IN CONFLICT WITH PAGAN PHILOSOPHY
========================================================================

The Church in Conflict With Pagan Philosophy “THE CHURCH IN CONFLICT WITH PAGAN
PHILOSOPHY” John T. Smith The subject which I am to discuss at this hour
comprehends a field that is vast, and its soil is largely virgin.

While I can truly say with Paul, “I count not my­self to have apprehended”—yet I
find it a field of un­usual interest and profit to those who like to trace, from
the small mustard-grain origin, the history and growth of the church in
unfriendly soil. Who are inter­ested in knowing more about the things which
stoutly opposed Christianity at its inception, and which things soon began to
corrupt the faith and retard the prog­ress of the church. By “the church,” we
mean the New Testament church, i. e., the church according to the New
Testa­ment, or the church revealed in the New Testament. The one which the
Savior said, “I will build” (Matthew 16:18), and which was set up, established,
and inau­gurated on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ from
the grave. This church was to be propa­gated by the preaching of the gospel
(Mark 16:15), by preaching a message wholly unlike anything the world had ever
heard. Not something which had sprung up out of the hidden depths of man’s
nature, something which he had reasoned out, but something communicated to him
from a higher source—a power descended from above.

“Philosophy,” in the original and widest sense, is “the love cr pursuit of
wisdom, or the knowledge of things and their causes.” Philip Mauro says:
“Philosopliy is the occupation of attempting to devise, by the exercise of the
human reason, an explanation of the universe.” In our study, philosophy is used
espe­cially of knowledge obtained by natural reason, in con­trast with revealed
knowledge. By “pagan,” we mean one who does not hold the true religion, or does
not worship the true God. Hence pagan philosophy as a system of religion was the
product of the speculations and human reasoning of those who knew not the true
God, in their efforts to find an explanation of the origin of the universe and
of man. Although it is specifically said in the word of the Lord, that the world
by its wisdom knew not God, (did not come to the knowledge of God, and cannot)
yet the interminable occupation of the philosopher, by means only of human
wisdom, is seeking to find an explanation of the universe—its existence and
origin, its Creator, and of man and the right way of life. In this study we are
not to deal with modern phil­osophy. It would no doubt be both interesting and
profitable to discover that there is very little that is modern about so-called
modern philosophy, but that it is almost wholly a revamping of the old
philosophies. Primarily, our subject does not involve the study of ancient
philosophy, only to the extent that we may know something of the deep-seated
customs and the modes of thinking which prevailed “when the fulness of time
came, and God sent forth his son” to establish his church upon the earth. We
need only a brief his­torical background to enable us to appreciate the task of
the early church, and the conflicts she had in her efforts to plant Christianity
upon the earth.

About five centuries before Christ, we find the Soph­ists or wise men. They were
teachers, attached to no institution and to no locality, thoroughgoing skep­tics
who doubted everything, but proposed to give instructions on all subjects. They
maintained that the basis of morality was to be found within one’s own
intellectual and moral being. (Paganism always in­sisted that man’s innate moral
sense would guide bis conduct aright. It recognized a distinction between vice
and virtue, but maintained that each man could tell which he ought to choose and
which eschew'.) The Sophists said there is no universal idea or standard of
conduct, but that each may do what is right in his own eyes. Naturally these
views and ideas led to a period of great laxity and immorality, and to the
corruption of Greek society. Every man became a law unto himself, for they said,
the way of man is in himself; he can direct his own steps. But Cod’s prophet
said: “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man
that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. i0:23). They were wise in their own
conceits, and confident n their ways, but Paul said: “The wisdom of this world
is foohshness with God.” Again it is said: “The Lord knoweth the reasonings of
the, wise, and they are vain.” Verily, “The way of a fool is right in his own
eyes” (Proverbs 12:15). These Sophists were just the spokesmen of their day, and
simply put into words what all Greek states practiced.

It is said that Socrates inaugurated a new era in the higher life. He was the
mortal enemy of the Soph­ists, and made the first Greek appeal to man’s
con­science. He said that correct thinking meant correct action. He believed
that knowledge and virtue could not be divorced. “Salvation is by wisdom,” said
he, “for no man who knows right will do wrong.” But like all pagan philosophers,
he insisted that innate moral consciousness is the guide and the sanction of
morality and virtue.

Historians tell us that Plato continued the work of Socrates in the search after
ultimate reality, and a deeper spiritual unity. He has been called “the
phi­losopher of the spirit.” He made philosophy a religion. His theory of
“ideas” was the basis of his system. “The idea is the archetype—the divine
thought or plan —of which material objects are the imperfect reflec­tion.” Plato
taught that it is in the celestial wTorld that we are to find the realm of
ideas, and that God is the supreme idea. He was far in advance of the
philosophers of his day. Eusebius says: “He alone of all the Greeks reached the
vestibule of truth and stood upon its threshold.” Yet Plato did not recog­nize
the true and living God, for he said: “Beauty, truth, love, these are God, whom
it is the supreme desire of the soul to comprehend.” While Plato ap­proached
wonderfully near to the truth with reference to “ideas” or “thoughts,” reminding
us of the lan­guage of the wise man, “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is
he,” and again, “Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues
of lice,” yet he never entered into the sanctuary of truth, because he relied
wdiolly upon philosophy, or the knowledge ob­tained by natural reason.

Aristotle was the world’s moralist, who made phi­losophy a science. He insisted
that goodness as a whole consists m both well-being and wrell doing, or goodness
of the intellect, and goodness of action. To him, good­ness consisted in some
form of efficiency, or some superiority in conduct, rather than m a state of
mind. Like Socrates, he believed that the two were insepara­ble ; that when one
knew right he would not go wrong.

After the death of these great philosophical lead­ers, the essential elements of
their theory of life were presented by the Stoics. This was a school founded by
Zeno about 300 B. C., at Athens. Stoicism was pantheistic. It taught that there
is no God except the combined forces and laws which are manifested in the
existing universe, or “the universe conceived of as a whole is god.” It
proclaimed that salvation consists in destroying the passions, suppressing the
emotions, and cultivating the will. Hence, man is potentially his own savior,
and doesn’t need any higher power. The Stoics did not entertain the hope of
immortality or the resurrection of the dead.

About the same time, Epicurus founded the school of the Epicureans at Athens.
They too, were greatly interested about the problem of conduct—“What is the
highest good?” And they proclaimed pleasure as man’s highest end; the summum
bonum of life. By “pleasure,” Epicurus meant satisfaction, contentment, and
peace of mind. But the idea was soon corrupted, and came to mean “sensual
enjoyment,” and “self.- gratification.” They denied the resurrection of the,
dead, and rejected the idea of a future state of re­wards and punishments.
“Salvation is confined to this life.” They did not even ascribe to God the
crea­tion of the woild, but held it to be the result of a conflux of atoms.
Being thus materialistic and athe­istic, the final and legitimate fruits of this
teaching were a gross sensualism.

Stoicism, which proclaimed that man is his own savior, and needs no higher
power, that he saves him­self by destroying his passions, suppressing his
emo­tions, and cultivating his will, exactly adapted itself to the thinking and
customs of the Romans. The circumstances of their eaily history taught them
self­control and self-reliance. Among them, religion was more closely interwoven
with politics than in any of the other ancient states. Indeed, their whole civil
and social life was based on relip;ious customs. Whatever, therefore, attacked
one of these must soon come into conflict with the other. The learned
aristocracy of Rome and Greece looked down on Christianity with contempt,
because it was propagated, for the most part, by the common, unlettered, and
uncultured class, and at first found readiest acceptance among the lower classes
of society. Celsus, the first writer against Christianity, jeers at the fact
that “wool-workers, cobblers, leather-dressers, the most illiterate and vul­gar
of mankind, were zealous preachers of the gospel, and addressed themselves,
particularly in the outset, to the women and children.” Another standing
objec­tion against Christianity was that it preached only a blind faith: that it
did not prove anything on philo^ sophi.cal grounds. Hence, Christianity had
against it on the one hand the pride of culture, and on the other, that it was
just another philosophy, which ought to be proven by reason. Shall we now look
to the New Testament, to discover some of the confficts between the church and
pagan philosophy, in apostolic days. The seventeenth chap­ter of Acts tells of
Paul’s singlehanded combat with some of these systems, especially the Epicureans
and Stoics, at Athens. Athens was the capitol of Greece, and the seat of
learning for the world. More, it was the stronghold of pagan philosophy and
idolatry, in apostolic times. The Bible says that Paul found the city full of
idols—and Petronius said: “It is easier to find a god than a man in Athens.” It
is said that there were some thirty thousand legalized gods among the Greeks.

Athens had become a place of public resort for phi­losophers and students from
all over the civilized world, and Luke tells us that “they spent their time in
nothing else, but to tell or to hear some new thing.” No doubt, the apostle had
this in mind when he wrote: “The Greeks seek after wisdom.”

While Paul waited for Timothy and Silas to join him, his spirit was stirred
within him. Thus he rea­soned, in the synagogue, with the few Jews who were
there, and in the market place every day, with the idle class who met him there.
Soon he was encountered by some of these philosophers, and invited to speak at
the Areopagus. They said, you are bringing strange things to our ears, and we
want to know what they mean. Paul began by complimenting them for being so
religious, “In all things I perceive that ye are very religious,” for “as I
observed the objects of your worship, I found an altar with this inscription,
‘To an unknown God.’ What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this I set forth
unto you.” The apostle be­gan with a God whom they worshipped in ignorance, and
preached unto them the God of heaven—a God of personality, a God of intellect,
and a God of power. He set him forth as the creator of the world and all things
therein, ruler of heaven and earth, and the author and giver of life. This
teaching naturally en­gendered conflicts, for it was a flat contradiction of
every thing which philosophy taught. They knew nothing about a personal,
intellectual God, “In whom we live, move, and have our being.” Paul concluded
his speech with statements which were even more ob­jectionable, when he said:
“God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness,”
and added that Jesus, whom he hath raised from the dead, will be the judge. They
didn’t believe in the res­urrection and the judgment, and a future state of
punishments and rewards. This was one of Paul’s most masterly discourses, and
seems to have been a complete failure. When he had finished, some mocked and
scorned, while others, with indifference, said: “We will hear thee again.”
Disappointed and disgusted, the apostle left before Timothy and Silas arrived.
Left without trying fur­ther to found a church. The trouble with the Athen­ians
was that they were seeking wisdom of a worldly sort—something which had been
reasoned out by men, and which would challenge their intellectual powers. Paul’s
message was descended from above, and was addressed to the heart and conscience.
No wonder he wrote to the Corinthians, (neighbors of the Athen­ians) and said:
“Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called”
(1 Corinthians 1:26). When he said: “I came not with excellency of speech or of
wisdom, proclaiming to you the testi­mony of God,” obviously he was alluding to
just such wisdom as was possessed by the philosophers.

Stephen seems to have encountered some of the same teaching in Jerusalem which
Paul found at Ath­ens. In Acts 6:9 it is said: “Then arose certain of the
synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and
Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.” In
chapter seven, verses 46-48, Stephen said: “David asked to find a habitation for
the God of Jacob. But Solomon built him a house. Howbeit, the most High dwelleth
not in houses made with hands.” Both Paul and Stephen had to combat the idea
that the God whom they preached and worshipped was just another god created by
man’s hands. They declared that he is Lord (ruler) of heaven and earth, and
dwelleth not in houses made with hands. In the second chapter of Colossians,
verses 8-10, the matchless apostle clearly sets forth the conflict which existed
between the philosophy of his day, and Christianity as it was taught and
practiced by the early church. “Take heed lest there shall be anyone that maketh
spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men,
after the rudi­ments of the world, and not after Christ: for in him dwelleth all
the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and in him ye are made full, who is the head
of all princi­pality and power.” This is the only time in all the word of the
Lord that the word, “philosophy” is named, and it is of much significance that
it is here coupled with “vain deceit,” and declared to be according to human
tradition and the course of this world (the basic principles of this evil
world), and not after Christ. The apostle warns, “take heed”—beware.” It means
to be on one’s guard. Beware, lest any one maketh spoil of you. The word “spoil”
(despoil) sig­nifies to make a prey of, as when one is stripped or deprived of
his valuables or treasures, by plausible swindlers. The treasure here
contemplated is the believers portion in the unsearchable riches of Christ. His
warning, therefore, is to keep people from being victimized by philosophy, and
losing their portion of the riches of Christ. He further declares, “It is not
after Christ,” that is, not according to Christ, not fol­lowing Christ, or not
compatible with the teaching of Christ. Philosophy is not according to Christ,
because it is purely the product of human reason. It is not after Christ, for
the simple and all-sufficient reason that the teaching of Christ puts an end to
all philo­sophical speculations concerning the relations of hu­manity to God and
to the universe. Frequently the Christ set his seal to the truth and divine
authority of the Old Testament scriptures, which declare un­mistakably that,
‘‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”; and again, “So God
created man in his own image—male and female, created he them, and bade them
have dominion over all the earth.” The philosophy of the pagans was “not after
Christ,” and the gospel which Paul preached was not after man (Galatians
1:11-12). “The gospel preached by me is not after man. For neither did I receive
it of man . . . . ” He declares that it is not something which man has reasoned
out, but that it came from a higher source. Of necessity, philosophy and divine
revelation are utterly irreconcilable.

Paul must have alluded to the teaching of the Epi­cureans, that man’s highest
end is pleasure, when he said: “If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink; for
tomorrow we die” (1 Corinthians 15:32). At Ephesus, he encountered Demetrius and
his me­chanics, who were making silver shrines of Diana, to sell to the devoted
worshippers. Demetrius and his mechanics, with those engaged in similar trades,
cre­ated a great disturbance, and bitter opposition against the cause and the
church. They were using the heath­en religion to make money, and Paul’s
preaching, “They are no gods that are made with hands,” inter­fered with their
business, and their temporal interests. To the Romans, Paul wrote of some, after
this fashion, (Romans 1:21-23): “But became vain in their imaginations (absorbed
in useless discussions), and their senseless heart was darkened.” Adam Clark
says, “This refers to the foolish manner in which even the wisest of their
philosophers discoursed about the divine nature. Their foolish, darkened, minds
sought God nowhere but in the place in which he is never to be found; viz., the
vile, corrupt, and corrupt­ing passions of their own hearts.” “Professing
them­selves to be wise (boasting of their wisdom), they became fools, and
changed the glory of the incorrup­tible God for the likeness of an image of
corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creep­ing things.”
Dr. Clark adds: “The finest representation of their deities was in the human
figure; and on such representative figures, the sculptors spent all of their
skill. And when they had formed their gods according to human shape, they
endowed them with human passions. Not having the true principles of morality,
they represented them as slaves to the most disorderly and disgraceful passions,
as possessing un­limited powers of sensual gratification.”

Throughout the New Testament, references and allusions are made to this great
conflict. Enough has been given for us to see something of the strug­gles and
trials of the early church, and to discover that in order to deliver its message
effectively, and to triumph over all opposition, it had to fight, and to defend
itself against the attacks of publicists and philosophers of that age.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: -THE CHURCH AND A CLERICAL HIERARCHY
========================================================================

The Church and a Clerical Hierarchy “THE CHURCH AND A CLERICAL HIERARCHY” John
T. Smith By “the church,” we mean the New Testament church, the one which Jesus
gave himself for or purchased with his own blood. A “hierarch” is an
ecclesiastical ruler, or one hav­ing rule in holy things. “Hierarchy” is the
power or rule of a hierarch, priestly rule or government, or an organized body
of priests or clergy in successive order or grades. “Clerical,” of or pertaining
to the clergy. From these latter definitions it will be obvious to all that we
are to study this subject almost entirely in the light of uninspired history. We
are to try to trace, historically, the movement referred to by Paul as the
“falling away,” and the progressive develop­ment of a hierarchial or
ecclesiastical system which corrupted the church from its primitive simplicity
and purity, and culminated in the “Church of Rome” with its successive order of
priests and prelates. The Bible furnishes us an excellent text with which to
begin. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 : “Now we beseech you, brethren, touching the
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him; to the end
that you be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by
spirit, or by word, or by epistle from us, as that the day of the Lord is just
at hand; let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the
falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition,
he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is
worshipped: so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as
God Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And
now you know that which restraineth, to the end that he may be revealed in his
own season. For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only there is one
that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall be
revealed the lawless one whom the Loid Jesus shall slay with the breath of his
mouth, and bring to naught by the manifestation of his coming; even he, whose
coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying
wonders, and with all deceit of unrighteousness for them-that perish; because
they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this
cause God sendeth them a work­ing of error, that they should believe a lie; that
they all might be judged who believe not the truth, but had pleasure in
unrighteousness.” From this reading it is clear that the Thessalonians were
troubled in regard to the second coming of Christ, and Paul writes to settle
their minds, “Let no man beguile (deceive) you—, for it will not be except the
falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of
perdition;....” He said the “man of sin” is being restrained to the end he may
be revealed in his own season. “P1or the mysteiy of lawlessness doth already
vTork: only there is one that restraineth now.” The Pulpit Commentary says: The
prediction of Paul, concerning the man of sin, mede a deep impres­sion upon the
early fathers, and the references to it in their writings are numerous. In
general, they con­sidered that the fulfillment of the prediction was fu­ture;
that the man of sin was anti-Christ, and an individual; and that the restraining
influence was the Roman Empire.” It further says: “The reformers in general
adopted this opinion.” The reformers did not agree with the fathers that the man
of sin—anti- Christ—is an individual, but rather the “succession of popes.”
Hence, they applied the name, “man of sin” to the movement or institution which
we style the hierarchial or ecclesiastical system.

There are some things very definite about Paul’s language in the text. First, an
apostasy is positively predicted, and the nature of it is clearly set forth. It
was not to.be a political, or social decline, but a reli­gious apostasy, and was
to take place before the sec­ond coming of Christ. Second, the quotation from
Paul shows that it was to be characterized by the usurpation of power or
authority. These points must not, cannot, be overlooked in discovering the
apostasy predicted by Paul. From the New Testament we learn that each
con­gregation was to have elders and deacons. Titus 1:5 : “For this, cause left
I thee in Crete, that thou should- est set in order the things that were
wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge.” Luke records
the fact that Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in every church which they had
established in Asia (Acts 14:23). To the Philippians Paul wrote: “To all the
saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” Thus
the New Testament church was a marvel of simplicity in its organization, with
only these two sets of officers; the first to “Tend the flock . . . . exercising
the oversight” (Acts 20:28), while the deacons were to look after the poor, and
perform other kindred duties. But this simplicity was not to continue very long.
The mystery o£ lawlessness had already begun to work in the days of the
apostles.

Bishop Newhon observes that, “The foundations of popery wTe^e laid in the
apostles’ days, but that the superstructure was raised by degrees, and that
sev­eral ages passed before the building was completed, and the. man of sin
revealed in full perfection.” Numer­ous passages in the New Testament clearly
pre­dict departures from the truth and simplicity which is in Christ, and a
tendency to follow the traditions of men. In his sacred, solemn charge to
Timothy (2 Timothy 4:1-8), Paul said: “For the time will1 come wThen they will
not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itch­ing ears, will heap to
themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their cars from
the truth, and turn aside unco fables.” Again 1 Timothy 4:1-3 says: “The Spirit
speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall fail away from the
faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of de­mons, through the
hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot
iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God
created to be received with thanks­giving by them that believe and know the
truth.” To the Ephesian elders he said: “For I know this, that after my
departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and
from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw’
the disciples after them.” Thus he predicted that wfithin the church, and among
its lead­ers, there would be men not satisfied with the sim­plicity thereof, but
who like Diotrephes, loveth to have the pre-eminence (3 John 1:9).

History records several stages or steps in the prog­ress of the apostasy, and
the building up of the hier­archy, which we shall try to discover. The first of
these was the ascendancy or sovereignty of the pres­byters or bishops. The Bible
plainly teaches that they are to have dominion and rule over the church. “Let
the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor” (1 Timothy 5:17).
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them” (Hebrews 13:17). But
they were not to “lord it over the charge allotted to them.” They were not to be
tyrannical, or to act as feudal lords.

During the second century, the idea developed that they were clothed with
absolute authority as God, and Christ, and the apostles, to rule the church.
Igna­tius, who was martyred early in the second century A. D«., and whom
tradition says was a disciple of the apostle John, said: Ye should also be
subject to the presbyters, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ.” He further said:
“See that ye follow the presbyters as ye would the apostles.” Irenaeus, who was
born about 120 A. D. made this statement: “Wherefore it is needful to abstain
from all these things, being sub­ject to the presbyters and deacons, as unto God
and Christ.” Thus presbyters or bishops were made abso­lute over the church, and
the initial departure was effected. In the New Testament, the names presbyter
and bishop are used interchangeably. Neander, in his His­tory of the Christian
Religion, says: “We find the names presbyter and bishop interchanged for each
other until far into the second century.” But at that time a distinction was
made which the Bible knows nothing about. The name bishop (episcopus) was
applied exclusively to the presbyter who acted as chair­man or president of the
presbytery. His place was soon made a standing office, and this bishop presumed
to have the pre-eminent oversight. He insisted that due to his superior office,
he should exercise greater authority. Neander says: “The bishops considered
themselves as invested with supreme power in the guidance of the church, and
would maintain them­selves in this authority.” This was the second step place
before the return of the Lord. The third step, though more radical, was quite
easy and natural, because the way had been paved for it. It was the formation of
a sacerdotal or priestly caste in the church. It was formed largely after the
order of the old Jewish priesthood. The people were divided into two classes,
the clergy and the laity, and these became separate and distinct bodies. Because
the clergy was supposed to live in constant intercourse with God, they soon
concluded that the only approach to God was through them. Thus they formed a
priest­hood for the people, laity, took charge of affairs gen­erally, and gave
to every church its priest.

Historians tell us that the next step was the multi­plication of church offices.
The system is being de­veloped. The hierarchy is lifting up its head, but it
required more organization to acquire more power and authority. So they combine
all the churches of a certain locality under one head and management. Over this
combine or association one of the bishops was placed to direct its affairs. When
associations of this kind had been formed throughout the state or province, with
a bishop over each of them, they were prepared for another forward step in the
development of the system. There was one drawback to the movement, and that was
that the church was filled with warring- factions, which had been developing
since the bishops usurped ascendancy and power over the presbyters. When
Constantine came to the throne in 312, he soon set about to reconcile these
matters. He called a general council in 325, which was attended by 318 bishops,
from all over the known world. Out of this council, the historian tells us, was
born the archbishopric. It was then that all the districts of a state or
province, with their presiding bishops, united under one head, which head was
called the archbishop, or higher bishop. He was given power and oversight over
the whole state. But the provinces of a nation must next be combined under one
head. This was the next step. Hence, one to rule and exercise dominion was
placed over this great organization. He was called the cardinal, which term is
derived from “cardo,” and means a “hinge.” At first the clergy who served the
cathedral churches were regarded as the hinges on which other clergymen and
their churches revolved, but later the name was applied to the bishops who
became heads of the different nations. Still later, the cardinals constituted
the official advisers or senate of the pope, in his administrative and
ecclesiastical affairs. But the man of sin is not yet fully revealed, “he that
opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is
worshipped.” Somewhere between the fourth and sixth century, another stage is
reached, when the patriarchate is formed. Just as the political rulers of the
large divisions of the Roman Empire were called exarchs, the religious chiefs of
the church were given the name patriarchs. At first only the bishops of Rome,
Alexandria, and Antioch received this honor, but soon Jerusalem and
Constantinople came to enjoy the same glory. Hence the world was sliced up into
five parts and a religious despot ruled in each realm. Each was absolutely
independent of the other. Finally, in the latter part of the sixth century,
these five powerful bishops waged a terrific struggle for supremacy. It was a
battle of the giants, a fight to the finish. Each was striving to occupy the
highest place, and have the title of “Universal Patriarch.” In' the year 606
Boni­face III was designated pope, by the Emperor Phocas, and was placed on the
religious and temporal throne of the world.

Gregory proudly claimed to be the successor of Peter, set up by God to govern,
not only the whole church, but if necessary to assume the control of civil
affairs in the whole world. Thus have we seen that through a succession of
departures from New Testament teaching, and the gradual development of a human
system of government, the Homan Catholic church, with its priests, bishops,
archbishops, cardi­nals, and popes, came into being, full grown, in less than
600 years after the primitive church was estab­lished. When one carefully
considers the predictions of Paul and then follows the events subsequently
occurring, to the elevation of the first pope, it seems all too obvious that his
specifications have been met.

Moreover, while these changes were all taking place in the administrative
department, a system of doc­trine, wholly unlike that which was given by the
apostles, was being developed. For example, “Holy water,” which was said to be
especially blessed and sanctified by the priest, was first introduced in the
year 120 A. P. Nothing which the Lord ever said, nothing- connected with the
Holy Spirit’s guidance is responsible for its us. It is strictly a human
innova­tion. The next innovation was the introduction of the doctrine and
practice of “penance”—the infliction of punishment to expiate for your sins, and
as an evi­dence of your penitence. It was first practiced in the year 157. Where
did the doctrine originate? Obvi­ously, in the minds of- those who “go onward,
and abide not in the doctrine of Christ.”

Then came “Latin Mass,” in the year 394, which is still practiced after a period
of more than 1500 years. Yet there is not one word respecting it in all the
pages of the Sacred Book. Gradually were these innova­tions introduced, and step
by step the “man of sin” developed. In the year 588, “extreme unction”—an
anointing administered to those thought to be in danger of immediate death,
began to be practiced. It was not introduced by authority of the apostles, or
the Holy Spirit, but purely upon the assumption and the authority of the
clerical hierarchy. The doctrine of “purgatory,” which teaches that those who
die unprepared, may be prayed out of their torment by the priest, provided a
sulficient sum of money is paid to the priest, was first announced in the year
593. The doctrine of “Transubstantiation” was intro­duced about the year 1000 A.
D. It taught that by the prayer of the pope or a priest under him, the bread and
wine were changed into the literal body and blood of Christ. Of course, there is
not a hint of such a thing, in all the word of God. It was never heard of until
the year 1000.

“Celibacy,” by which they mean that the popes and priests will not marry, was
introduced in the year 1015, and seems to perfectly fulfill the prediction of
Paul (1 Timothy 4:1-3), “In later times some shall fall away from the faith,
giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy
of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron;
forbidding to marry . . .

There was introduced in the year 1190 the doctrine of “indulgences,” which
simply meant that if one would pay the priest a satisfactory sum, he could do
whatever he pleased, give himself up to mirth, gratify his appetites and
propensities. All would be absolved by the indulgence. Verily, “the love of
money is the root of all evil.”

Next in order was “Auricular confession”—con­fessing one’s sins into the ear of
the priest, that he may forgive them. Of course, he has no more power to forgive
sins than any other man. Only the blood of Jesus Christ can cleanse one from his
sins, and that has never been delegated to any man on earth. Auric­ular
confession was just a part of that ecclesiastical system built by man, and was
never heard of until the year 1215. In the year 1311, “Sprinkling” for baptism
was adopted at the council of Ravenna. Sprinkling had been practiced in cases of
sickness and on special occa­sions, since 251 A. D., but now it beomes a
doctrine and a regular practice of the western branch of the church. The Greek
Catholics have never practiced 'sprinkling, but from the beginning of their
existence until now, they have practiced immersion. There is no higher authority
for sprinkling for baptism than the Roman Catholic church. There is neither
precept nor example for it in any of the recorded cases of con­version in the
New Testament.

Thus we have seen the primitive church, which had its beginning at Jerusalem,
corrupted by a suc­cession of departures and innovations until it com­pletely
lost its original simplicity and purity. In its stead, we have seen the “man of
sin” raised up to his full power, “exalting himself above all that is called
God, or that is worshipped.” He claimed to be the successor of Peter, the vicar
of Christ; set up by God to govern the church and the world. But after a
thousand years of corruption, supersti­tion, and spiritual darkness, the clouds
rifted and the sun broke through once more. Hence the church of the Lord Jesus
Christ was restored to its ancient purity and power.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: -THE CHURCH DURING THE DARK AGES
========================================================================

The Church During the Dark Ages THE CHURCH DURING THE DARK AGES A. O. Colley My
friends, I am happy, on this occasion, for the confidence indicated by our
program committee in as­signing me this important subject. To trace the church
through the darkest period of human existence, when all but a few of its members
had been either destroyed or scattered by religious and political powers, is no
small matter. The era to be briefly covered in this address is from A. D. 321 to
A. D. 1333, and to be presented in less than an hour it will be necessary to
touch the subject only in its vital points which will serve merely as an outline
for further study of the great question.

I know of no text that would be more appropriate than the one found in
Revelations 11:1-12. The first two verses read, “And there was given me a reed
like unto a rod: and one said, arise, and measure the tem­ple of God, and the
altar, and them that worship there­in. And the court which is without the temple
leave without, and measure it not; for it hath been given unto the nations: and
the holy city shall they tread un­der foot forty and two months.” I suggest that
you get the Bible and read the remainder of this text.

I am aware of the dangers that lie in trying to in­terpret “Unfilled
Prophecies,” as it has become a great field for speculation, which, if followed
very far, leads to division and many evils; but, I do not propose, in this
address, to indulge in that which is future, but to the age already past, which
my subject covers.

I shall ask you to note carefully some of the things in the book of Revelations
that I believe refers directly to the subject I have to discuss. I do not
believe Reve­lations to be a sealed book to students of history who are not
disposed to theorize upon it. I call it “The Prophetic History of the Church.”
It covers the “Things thou, (John) had seen, the things that are, (at the time
he wrote) and the things that would come to pass.”

How to Understand the Prophetic History This book relates, under various
figures: horses, seals and many other emblems, what history now re­veals to us
as “past events.” The Lord has not given us a single new doctrine in the entire
book of Revela­tions. He only tells of the historic development of the church
through a few hundred years, and employs these figures to do so. We shall pass
over, for the sake of brevity, a great portion of the first five chapters, as
they are in explanation of the things into which the sixth seems to lead
directly. In this chapter, and the next, we have an historic vision of the
church and the truth that the church has always depended upon for its
perpetuity. This historic picture is put under “Seven Seals,” four of which are
represented by four horses, the colors of which are represented as white, red,
black and pale. These horses and the seven seals carry us through the historic
periods of the church, from its introduction into the world, until it is through
with that part of the history of the world called “The Dark Ages.” This is over
when the truth is again put back into a living language. (From the 6th to 20th
Ch. Rev.) My part of this subject rightly begins in the days of Imperial Rome,
under the rule of Constantine. He, as a world ruler, took the church under his
political protection, posing as its friend. Secular history re­gards him as “A
Christian Emperor” and outwardly it seems that he was a great friend to the
followers of Christ, but, ic is apparent to all who will carefully look into
this great ruler’s life, that he -was only out­wardly, or politically, a
Christian. lie posed as a Christian, but like many of our day, was not baptized
until near the close of his life. It is suggested by some historians that he
understood baptism was “for the remission of sins,” and he desired to wait until
he was through sinning to get the entire benefits. Be that as it may, although
having some error, even in that century, in regard to gospel obedience, it shows
that the doctrine first announced in the founding of the church, on the
memorable Pentecost, by the apostles, was not obscure.

Good and Bad Results From the viewpoint of the casual observer, who does not
study Christianity from the New Testament records, it looks like a great victory
for the church. The influence was far reaching; but was both good and bad. Good,
in that Chr istians were no longer per­secuted and accused of everything that
happened, and which often led to forms of severe punishment, even death. It is
said that the “Sword of persecution was not only sheathed; it was buried.” Just
prior to this time, under Diocletian, the houses belonging to the church were
either confiscated, or destroyed. Much of this was restored and given back to
the professed followers of Christ. Idolatry was discouraged, but not forcibly
forbidden in every place. Many of the idolater’s temples were converted into
places of Chris­tian worship. The church began to live and prosper from the
public funds of the empire. This was a great day for the bishops and high church
men, the clergy, as it was then called. They were freed from taxes, or dues, to
the government. This led to great differ­ence between the “Clergy and the
Laity,” which some try to recognize now.

Sabbath and the First Day During this time, as existed more or less all the time
from the days of the Apostles, there had been a great controversy among the
professed followers of Christ, as to which day of worship they should .keep.
Those who were influenced by the Old Testament be­lieved in keeping the Sabbath,
while the ones who be­lieved the New Testament, the only authority for
reli­gious worship, believed in keeping the first day of the week. In 321 A. D.
Constantine settled the contro­versy by naming the first day of the week as the
day of worship. He did not change the day of worship, as some of our
Sabbatarians claim, but merely put an end to the controversy.

Many Good Influences Other good influences were brought about as a re­sult of
the Emperor believing in Christianity. He caused “Crucifixion” as a mode of
execution Roman criminals to cease. He recognized the cross as a sacred emblem,
and would not allow it used in such executions. Another great service to
humanity was that Constan­tine stopped the slaying of infants at birth. The
Rom­ans, under pagan rule, held that they had the right to dispose of infants at
birth if for any reason they were not wanted. Some took advantage of that state
of affairs, selling them to be reared as slaves. This led to other modifications
of slavery, and greater liberty for the common or lower classes as they were
called at that time.

Gladiators Men killed each other for the mere entertainment of the spectators.
Contests were fought in the are­nas with knives unto the death. This was
modified in the days of Constantine, but never fully outlawed until A. D. 404.
Constantine’s mother was said co be a real Christian, and did much to help him
in his re­forms, but public sentiment grew in favor of the Em­peror’s religion
until the worldly ambitious, instead of the really converted people, gained
control of the af­fairs of the church.

Debates Carried on in This Period A controversy over the nature of Christ.
Apollinaris, Bishop of Laodicea, A. D. 360, affirmed that Christ, on earth, was
no part human, but God, in hu­man form. This met with much opposition and
de­bate. His heresy was finally condemned by the coun­cil of Constantinople, A.
D. 381. and Apollinaris with­drew from the church. On sin and salvation—Adamic
Sin. This con­troversy originated A. D. 410, and was lead by Pel- agus, a Monk,
who came from Britain to Rome. His doctrine was that we did not inherit our
sinful na­ture from Adam, but each one was free to make his own choice, whether
of sin or righteousness; that each one must answer for himself. This doctrine is
held by many today, while others oppose and say that we all sinned through
Adam’s transgression and be­came so sinful that even babies are born sinful.
Augustine was the great champion of the doctrine of “original sin” and really
prevailed. In a council at Car­thage, A.D . 418, the Pelagian theory was
condemned. We can never tell the influence of any doctrine upon humanity. This
controversy, and its effects, may be found in some of the modern creeds. (See
Methodist Discipline put forth in 1894 and how it was modified in the one by
their conference of 1918.) Both in­clude the idea of “original sin” into the
practice of infant baptism. (Pages 12 and 201 for the first and 4 and 329 for
the last.) Many evil consequences have arisen from this doctrine of “inherited
sin,” the sin of Adam transferred to the entire race through natural generation.
For more complete discussion of this doc­trine, see “Cyclopedia of Religious
Knowledge,” page 720. The Rise of Monasticism and Pillar Saints You will bear in
mind, in the early church, there were neither monks nor nuns, but, in the fourth
cen­tury there arose these twTo offices that had much to do with the
modifications of the doctrinal purity of the New Testament church. The founder
of this new heresy was “Pelagius of Britain.” He started the movement, A. D.
420, that reached greater propor­tions during the middle ages. It meant at first
retire­ment from the world, and had but little significance, but later became
more important because bishops were selected from among their number. Dwelling
places were erected and were occupied in common by the monks, who were under
religious vows of seclusion. These places were called monasteries. One, Simon
called Stylites, left a monastery and started the practice of building
“Pillars,” where he was seated on high that all might see him, A. D. 423.

Cause of Much Corruption After the death of Constantine, Rome had weaker men for
Emperors, and the church lost its original identity by becoming politically
entangled. Man, re­gardless of character, sought membership in the church,
mainly for political protection. They began to reorganize the church, out of the
material they had in it, more political than religious. It was des­tined, so far
as the leaders were concerned, to be patterned after the Empire of Rome, and to
reach that state where one head should control it. It was said by them, “Bishops
rule the church, but who is to rule the Bishop?” Since they saw, as they
thought, the need for a “Controlling Bishop,” they started the process of
selecting one. The presiding bishops ijj cer­tain cities soon became known as
“Metropolitans,” and afterwards the same ones were called “Patriarchs.” These
Metropolitans or Patriarchs lived in the larger cities, as Rome, Jeiusalem,
Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople.

Great controversies arose between these leaders un­til finally the papacy of
Rome was established. This was about A. D. 451 when the bishop of Rome gained
authority over the others, but was not a confirmed Pope until a still later
date. The development of the Pope as the supreme pontiff was nearly one thousand
years reaching its climax—“Universal Bishop” and head of the church- -and in
addition to that, hus claim to be ruler over the nations, above Kings and Em
perors. This came under Gregory VII, known also as Hildebrant, A. D. 590-604.
Under him let us observe some departures from the New Testament or­der, as
follows: (1) Adoration of Images. (2) Pur­gatory (place of punishment after
death). (3) Trans-substantiation (the claim that the bread and wine in the
communion could, by them, be changed to the real body and blood of Christ). (4)
Monastic life (he had been a monk and was, therefore, an advocate of mon­astic
life).

During this time the Pope, in a measure, defended the weak; checked divorce and
the mistreatment of wives by their husbands, and this rule applied to the rulers
as well as others, for some of them were forced to take back their wives they
had driven away. Many of the sick and weak were cared for, and this went far in
influencing the common people to favor their rule.

Spurious Documents It may seem strange to us that forgeries would be used in the
name of religion in trying to bolster up false theories, but such was the case
in those dark days when men feared to challenge the authority of the Pope, or
high church ruler in anything. Many such forgeries were circulated, but since
then have been discarded, after being proved of fraudulent pro­duction.

One of these documents was supposed to have been from Constantine to the Bishop
of Rome. This was shown and circulated long after Rome had fallen and was
purported to have been given to a pope, be­fore there was a pope. Let us bear in
mind that the Emperor Constantine lived A. D. 314-335, and this was long before
the papal power had developed. This document claimed that the Bishop of Rome had
supreme authority over all the European provinces, and that he was ruler over
the Emperors. A little later on, other forgeries were discovered, among which
was “The False Decretals of Isidor,” and this was said to have been, by early
Bishops of Rome, even from the days of the Apostles. It set forth some of their
best claims to authority, by declaring that the Pope of Rome had absolute
supremacy over the church; and absolved the church from any individual authority
from the state; and further declared that no secular court could judge in
matters pertaining to the church or the clergy. For hundreds of years these, and
sim­ilar documents were accepted at face value by the peo­ple, which gave the
Pope, and whomsoever he set up as his helpers, great power. Through careful
research and study by certain persons deeply interested in re­ligious history,
the forgeries were detected, and the yoke of Rome finally thrown off. The style
of the Latin language used in the documents did not cor­respond to the usage of
the age, for which they were claimed. The historical conditions, titles, et
cetera, were those of the Middle Ages, shown to be products of a later date, but
not until the Reformation of the sixteenth century did these documents receive a
com­plete exposure as forgeries.

Stage of Culmination of Popery I shall not try to follow these men that the
world called great in their efforts to completely subdue the church in its
original purity, for this address would necessarily be too long; but let me give
you a few of the things which have greatly hindered and cor­rupted the way that
was once plainly preached and understood. True Christianity, though hindered in
the first and second century, did not entirely leave the old paths. The next
century brought a few things into view, which the Apostle Paul warned the church
at Thessa™ lonica (2 Thess. 2:1 12) would possibly come to pass, that is, if
there was “a falling away” first. This trouble, did not have to come, but evil
and half con­verted men in the church, or connected with the organization that
sought power, lead to the forfeiting of some of the principles for which Christ
had died. This paved the way for additional trouble. The church, in this century
shifted from a strictly religious body to an institution that was protected by a
political power. (Figuratively “went off on the wings of the beast,” a picture
of which we have in the 12th chapter of Revelations.) During this time, mind
you, they did not all leave the old paths, for the Lord has always had a
“remnant that kept the commandments of God” (Revelation 12:17). These, during
the dark days of human speculation, were called dissenters, heretics, etc., and
were men who would withdraw from such corruptions and stand exposed to the wrath
of their prosecutors rather than follow off into practices they did not believe,
just to stand under the protection of Rome. Among the ones who would not bow to
such corruptions was Novaton He started his work in the year A. D. 251, for and
with the church at Rome, but had to withdraw and worship in a separate place and
manner in order to keep the faith as he understood from the New Testament. There
have been men in every century who would not bow to human rule, and with them,
few or many, the faith line has been preserved and the truth upheld. “The
children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Romans 9:8). You will find a
few terms that sound strange and foreign to those accustomed to New Tes­tament
phraseology, but this is easily accounted for when we consider their
associations with the corrupt church. “Evil communications corrupt good
man­ners,” and also modify good language.

One quotation must be included here that will show you what existed in many
places, “In the year A. D. 590, the Bishop of Italy and the Grisons,
(Switzer­land) to the number of nine, rejected the communion of the pope as an
heretic. This schism had continued from the year A D. 553, and towards the close
of the century, the Emperor, Maurice, having ordered them to be present at the
council of Rome, they were dis­pensed by the Emperor upon their protest that
they could not communicate with pope Gregory I” (Dr. Alex’s Remarks, Ch. 5, p.
32). We here refer the reader to Jones’ History, page 244, to show how many of
those who could not and would not be influenced with the false doctrine and
practices of the church of Rome. The Sixth Century During this century many
departures from the an­cient order of the New Testament can be found. Be­cause
the church had developed a pope and he had such unlimited power, we are able to
glean just a few things from the many they did as worship. They had charge of
the documents of the church and per­mitted just such as they chose to be
preserved, and any who dared challenge their ecclesiastical power were
suppressed.

It was during this age that the first instruments of music found its way into
the worship. Some of our brethren, who have seen proper to include instrumental
music in their worship, try to convince us that we are behind the times; cannot
appreciate good music, nor understand the Greek language, in fact some of them
try to say we are in the dark as to the meaning of'the word “psallo” that was
used, in the New Testament, to express the kind of music we should have. To
this, let me say, that we should turn to this picture of history during the
“Dark Ages” and see how and where they learned the meaning of that word so well.
It was learned from Pope Vitali- anus (Eng. pronunciation, Vitalian). This pope
reigned A. D. 657-672. Proof, “The organ was said to have been first introduced
into church music by Pope Vitalian I in A. D. 666” (Vol. 7, Chamber’s Enc. p.
112). The Greeks should understand their own language. “The Greek word ‘psallo’
is applied among the Greeks of modern times exclusive to sacred music, which in
the Eastern church has never been other than vocal, instrumental music being
unknown in that church, as, it was in the primitive church. Sir John Hawkins,
following the Romish writes, in his learned work on the ‘History of Music’ makes
Pope Vitalian, in A. D. 660, the first who introduced organs into the church”
(Quoted from McClintock and Strong’s Ency­clopedia on Music). Personally, I have
met one public debater on that question who said, “This was the first organ, but
they might have had other instru­ments in New Testament time.” I asked him to
read again the statement, “Has never been any other than vocal, instrumental
music being unknown in that church as it was in the primitive church.” I think
this is too plain to admit of a doubt as to the meaning of the authors quoted
above.

Many Departures Had Come In Many other departures from the New Testament had
found their way into the church before this one. The tendency for departure once
established, and the Bible dethroned as a standard of authority, brought about
these departures. When an elder can develop into a Pope by evolving from lower
to higher; and when sprinkling and pouring is substituted for bap­tism, and the
“Confession of sins” to a priest takes the place of confessing Christ, and
living the Christian life daily before him; and Indulgences (Selling the right
to sin) be given to people by such human heads, we may expect just any thing to
follow in the name of religion. This Gradual Development All of these departures
did not come in one century. Neither did “Church and State” become united, in
the fullest sense, until between A. D. 850 and 1073. Hil­debrand, better known
in history as Gregory VII, was said to be the first one of the Popes to wear the
“Tri­ple Crown,” and was head of Church, State and all other rules.

Henry the IVth and Pope Gregory VII A rather interesting affair took place
between the Emperor and the Pope at this time. Henry the IV taking offence at
something the pope had done, tried to depose him, but this he was unable to do,
even though he summoned a group of German Bishops to his aid, and really secured
their decision to depose the pope. He was made to stand, clothed in wool, and
with bare feet, in front of the Pope’s castle, (At that time at Canossa, in
northern Italy) before he could ever have the Pope’s favor again. From this Time
on Emperors Had to Get the Sanction of the Pope to Rule From Gregory the VII, A.
D. 1073 to A. D. 1216, there were seven Popes, some strong and some weak, so far
as ruling power was concerned. This reached the time of Pope Innocent III, who
seemed to have been the most outstanding character among the Popes of his time.
In a public address he declared of him­self, “The successor of St. Peter stands
midway be­tween God and man; below God, above man; judge of all, judged by
none.” He is quoted as saying in an official letter, “To the Pope has been
committed not only the whole church, but the whole world.” He further declared,
“the right of disposing of the Im­perial and all other crowns.” History of this
Pope shows he was chosen to office when he was about thir­ty-seven years of age.
He was very bold in trying to carry out what he claimed to be the power of the
Pope. One of the emperors, Otho Brunswick, stated publicly that he wore the
crown “by the grace of God and the Apostolic See.” He later deposed this same
ruler because of insubordination and had another ruler put in his place. He also
deposed and excommuni­cated King John of England but King John was rein­stated
and allowed to rule again as the Pope’s choice. In this Pope, Innocent III, the
peak of autocratic power was reached, about A. D. 1216.

Popery Declines in Power The decline of power was felt first by “Bonaface the
VIII”, 1295-1303. He, asserting that God had set him over all the kings and
kingdoms of earth, found himself strongly opposed by both the King of England
and the King of France. He forbade Ed­ward the I, King of England, to tax church
property and priestly income, but was compelled to compro­mise by having the
priests and bishops give a part of their income to the government. He quarrelled
with the King of France. Philip the Fair, who made war with him, captured and
thrust him into prison. He was released but soon died.

After this Followed Darker Days for Popes France dictated to the Popes and had
them do the bidding of France from A. D. 1305-1378. During this time rivaling
popes arose, and all made certain claims, but were not able to sustain their
claims. They moved the headquarters from Rome to Avig­non, in the Southern part
of France. Papal orders were ignored and even Popes were ordered out of England
by Edward the III. (See History of the Popes, Cyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,
Page 748.) Concluding Remarks Speaking of one of the great leaders of the dark
ages, Gibbons said, “He investigated the creed of the primitive Christians, a
Christian church was col­lected. In a little time several individuals arose
among them qualified for the work of the ministry; several other churches were
collected throughout Armenia and Capidocia. It appears from the whole of their
history, to have been a leading object of Con­stantine. (This is not the Emperor
Constantine of A. D. 321, etc.—A, 0. Colley.) and his brethren to restore, as
far as possible, the profession of Chris­tianity to all its primitive
simplicity.

(Could anything be more like the plea of the breth­ren of the church of Christ
of our time?—A. 0. C.) .......Their congregations in process of time, were
diffused over Asia minor, to the West of the Euphra­tes.” Gibbons goes further,
“The Paulican teachers, were distinguished only by their scriptural names, by
the austerity of their lives, their zeal and knowledge,” Gibbons further
describes their suffer­ing, and persecution by stating, “During a period of one
hundred and fifty years, these Christian churches seemed to have been almost
incessantly subject to persecution, which they supported with Christian meekness
and patience; and if the acts of their lives, were distinctly recorded, I see no
reason to doubt that we should find in them the genuine successors of the
Christians of the two first centu­ries” (Jones Church History, P. 239,' 240).
Other historic statements to be found in “Live Religious Issues of the Day by
Carroll Kendick, Pages 345, 350, tell us of the great faith of those who would
not go off “Into the wilderness” of speculations of design­ing leaders. The
church then, and the church now, is with those who will not follow human
speculation and confusion but, who will live and die by the Old Book. I repeat,
It is not necessary that we be able to trace a line of folks through the dark
ages, to be able to trace the church; but we must be able to trace the facts
upon which the church has ever depended upon for its existence.

We do not have to trace an unbroken chain of human succession from the apostles
until now to have the church; but, we can find the principles of the New
Testament, as the “Seed of the Kingdom” or the word of God (Luke 8:13), will
reproduce the kingdom in human hearts today, when heard, believed and obeyed,
just as it did the first time it was pre­sented. Hence, the power to trace the
kingdom of God--—the church of the living God—consists not in a succession of
Popes, or any less pretentious denominational fabrics; but in the tracing of
“facts.” We can find men who believed the facts concerning the kingdom of God
and the things peculiar to the church in every age. Please see Jones’ Church
His­tory, P. 244, for those who believed and taught the Bible independent of
political corruption referred to in the age of darkness. Also a work that tells
of such worship in A. D'. 590, is Dr. Allix’s Remarks, Chap. 5, Page 32.

We can find men in all these ages contending for truth and contending against
error. And we bring out the following questions for the study of this period. Do
you have any desire to study church history? Do you think the truth depends upon
human history to in any way confirm the Lord’s prom­ise to Peter and the other
disciples (Matthew 16:16-18). “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it?”
Do you believe the book of Revelation, in any ' way gives a picture of this age
(the dark ages) of the church? What does apostasy mean? Do you believe, the true
church apostatized in this age? What do you contribute, primarily, to be the
cause of the dark ages? What was the first step that really led men to depart
from the faith? Who was said to be the first Christian emperor? Do you believe
he was a real Christian, or a nom­inal one ? What real good do you think
Constantine did? 10. What real harm to the truth do you think he did? 11. Do you
think all the church apostatized or was there a “Remnant who understood and kept
the commandments of God?” 12. What is a remnant? 13. What is the church? Of what
is it composed? 14. Can you have the New Testament church and not have all the
officers—organization, as to elders, deacons, and evangelists? 15. Upon what
does the church depend to perpet­uate its existence? Who argues that it must be
perpetuated through popery? 16. Name two other denominations that claim a
succession of folks from the days of the apos­tles? 17. Do you believer either
of the claims could be sustained? 18. How could we reproduce the church today if
we should lose our identity? (Give passages of Scripture that you think
justifies your answer.)

Please turn to and read (it would be excellent if you would memorize) the follow
passages: Daniel 2:44; Daniel 4:3; Daniel 7:13-14; Matthew 16:18; 1 Corinthians
15:24; Php_3:21.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: -THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION AND THE CHURCH
========================================================================

The Protestant Reformation and the Church THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION AND , THE
CHURCH E. W. McMillan

Ladies and gentlemen: I standat the end of one hundred hours of special labor,
conscious that I must answer to God for every word of this address.

History offers information of a wide scope. It offers thrills from the Pilgrim
fathers, searching for wealth and freedom. Its pages tell of daring desperadoes.
They tell of humble, suffering people, searching for gold. But among history’s
most colorful years since New Testament times are those five centuries which
culminated in the Protestant Reformation. Brave souls waded through fire and
blood, searching for light rays on the sacred page. Each in his search veered at
times from the right and erred in judgment upon major matters, but the search
went steadily on and the perseverance was nearly divine. The two major questions
forming the basis of all thought were these: First, Shall children of God have
freedom of thought, speech and worship or be mere parrots of clerical hierarchy
? Secondly, Shall congre­gations of disciples be independent?

Disputants in all controversies yielded themselves at times the instruments of
selfishness, prejudice and cur­rent philosophies. We are amazed at their wide
vari­ance from definitely stated truths. But we thank God for the doors they
opened, for the enemies they wound­ed and for the heritage of faith they left
us. We also pray God’s mercy upon their blindness, as we hope our children will
do for us. Our study will reach across five centuries, ending with the
nineteenth. Crossing these, we shall meet Zwingli, John Calvin, Martin Luther,
the Wesleys, John Knox, Roger Williams, the Campbells and others as heroes of
the Reformation. Protesting against the abuses in Catholic, bodies—Greek and
Roman—those men produced the denominations we know to-day as Lutherans,
Presbyterians,, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, Disciples, and other minor
bodies.

Like a small stream, oozing from beneath a stone on a mountainside,' gradually
enlarging itself and gaining momentum until it becomes an Amazon, single voices
of protest began in the early part of the fourteenth century and grew in number
until they shook the entire Catholic world and wounded the powers of the papacy.
The year of thirteen hundred A. D. knew two para­mount, antagonistic religious
organizations—the Greek or Eastern Catholic church, ;and the.Roman, or West­ern
Catholic church. Their memberships numbered into the millions. The Roman
Catholics claimed the pope, seated on his throne in Rome, was enabled by divine
power to utter dictums as infallible as those spoken to the apostles of Christ.
They did. not claim him infallibly perfect as a man but said that the laws given
by him and his col­lege of cardinals were as binding as the New Testament
scriptures. They also believed that infants were born in sin, that a state
between death and the resurrection, called the Limbo of Infants, existed as a
place of pun­ishment for all infants who die without Catholic bap­tism and the
last sacrament in death. They believed that all men must be purged between death
and the res­urrection of taints of sin left upon their souls at death, that a
placed called “purgatory” was prepared for this purpose and that man’s duration
therein could be short­ened by the prayers of the priest. The ministry of the
priest included saying mass at stated intervals, baptiz­ing infants and adults
(they practiced sprinkling for baptism), administering the last sacrament at
death to both infants and adults, the forgiveness of sins to penitent church
members and praying for the dead. Sums of money, often large, were paid the
priest by sorrowing loved ones that he might pray out of tor­ment departed
friends. They believed also that the elements of the Lord’s Supper became the
literal flesh and blood of Christ when the priest blessed them. This change of
elements was called “Transubstantiation” and it formed a major basis of the
controversies in succeeding centuries.

Someone has well said that, “Whatever the Roman Catholic believed, the Greek
Catholic denied.” They denied the doctrines of purgatory, transubstantiation,
hereditary sin limbo of infants, sprinkling for baptism, instrumental music in
worship, indulgences and ex­treme unction. They also denied papel supremacy,
though their own patriarchal form of government was little nearer scriptural, if
any.

Miftor religious bodies of this century were the Albi- genses and the Waldenses.
Originating in the twelfth century, without a formulated theology,
unostentatious and simple in manners but tinged with a mystic philos­ophy, the
Albigenses existed mainly as a protest against the extreme moral corruption of
the Catholic clergy. Peter Waldo, a rich merchant of Lyons, estab­lished the
Waldensean movement. Adopting the Albi- gensean protest against moral corruption
in the clergy, the Waldenses added remonstration against Catholic
ecclesiasticism and pleaded for the Bible as the only guide in religion. Both
movements suffered an amaz­ing amount during the bloody Inquisitions The most
effective voice yet to be heard was that of John Wickliff, 1330-1384. Educated
in the Roman reli­gion and trained for their clergy, he was often favored by the
Pope. At the age of forty-five he was shocked at the moral corruption in the
clergy, and within five years more had come to question the entire Catholic
faith. His one great achievement was the translation of the Bible from the Latin
Vulgate into English, giv­ing the Bible to the common people.

John Prague and John Huss, 1370-1415, joined these protesting movements against
papal supremacy, doc­trines and moral corruptions. In return, Catholics burned
them at the stake and scattered their ashes to the wind.

Far from a strictly New Testament order were the teachings and practices of
these men. Their Chris­tianity was mixed with personalities and selfishness. But
the God who captured a heathen poem for Paul’s use on Mars Hill could use the
truths urged by these men, the zeal of the Mystics and such other men as Erasmus
to kindle the fires which later lighted the road back through the dark centuries
of Catholicism to the days of the apostles. Heroes looming before us now are
Zwingli, Luther and Calvin.

Ulric Zwingli was a Swiss, born January 1, 1484. Reared and educated in Catholic
theology, he was a priest for twenty years. But his honest heart more and more
inclined toward reformatory ideas. Even a protest from the bishop of Constance
could not stop his eloquent voice. In Zurich, he removed all statutes and
pictures and substituted for ritualisted mass the simple observance of the
Lord’s supper. But a Cath­olic army compassed this town in 1531, killed Zwingli,
cut his body to pieces, burnt it with the bodies of swine and scattered the
ashes in the wind. No madness is so mad as the madness of a theologian who
cannot prove his doctrine. No blindness is so blind as that blindness which does
not want to see the truth. The German, Martin Luther, was the next exponent of
the Reformation. Trained for a priest, he became a devout Augustinian monk. As
such, he studied care­fully the Holy Scriptures. Luther’s three points of attack
upon Catholicism were transubstantiation, papal supremacy and the sale of
indulgences. With amazing courage, Luther fought. And his inconsistencies were
fully as amazing. He said, “Faith without any ante­cedent love justifies.” He
further said, “The life is far less important than the doctrine” He raised an
army and shouted, “To Rome; hang the pope.” He indorsed all the divorces and
further marriages neces­sary to produce personal happiness. He recommended
bigamy. His personal enmity was such that he and Calvin were not allowed to meet
when mutual friend sought a reconciliation of their religious ideas in the same
town. Intermediaries went to and fro between them, delivering messages, but with
no good results.

Luther developed three main constructive doctrines. They were: Justification by
faith, the Holy Scriptures as sole religious authority, and the right of private
opinion. Unalterably, he clung to the first. He inter­preted the second to the
point of drawing up articles of faith as binding as was Catholic theology. He
insisted upon the third in freeing himself from the Catholics but was wholly
unwilling to apply its prin­ciples to those who dissented from his views.

Luther’s most spectacular contemporary—colleague in revolt from Catholicism but
opponent in theology— was John Calvin. Calvin is known supremely for his “five
points” of theology. He said (1) that humanity inherits Adam’s guilt; (2) that
man is totally depraved at birth; (3) that God decreed before time that certain
persons, irrespective of their will or merit, shall be saved and that others
shall be lost; (4) that God, in his own good time, will save the elect; and (5)
that no child of God can possibly be lost. John Knox drew up articles of faith,
strongly Calvinistic, which served until the Westminister Assembly, 1647.
Calvin’s pun­ishment of dissenters equaled that of Rome. His once good friend,
Servetus, was burned at his behest. From the work of Martin Luther sprang what
we now know as the Lutheran church, who hold substan­tially the view he advanced
with an added Modernism, rank and rotten. Calvin’s efforts crystallized what we
know as the Presbyterian church, whose views are strictly Calvinistic. The
Church of England, known in America as the Episcopal church, sprang out a
disagreement between the pope and England’s king, Henry VIII. The king wanted to
divorce his wife without a cause and marry another. The pope said “No.”
Exasperated from papal abuses financially, morally and spiritually, the king
added these to his displeasure of the pope’s reply, called Parliament together
and secured their vote to free England from Catholicism. The king and
Par­liament were declared the head of the English church. Under them, an
episcopal form of church government was instituted, modeled after the Roman
church. The “Book of Common Prayer” was ratified as their creed in 1789 on
October 16. It requires that each member individually receive it as the liturgy.
It affirms that all men are born in sin and calls upon its members to pray his
special mercy upon the sinful nature of the infant in baptism. Persons becoming
members sub­scribe these doctrines, true or false.

Baptist bodies have a varied history. In the third century a group known as
Anabaptists existed, but these have no connection with modern Baptists. Among
other departures from apostolic doctrines, sprinkling for baptism had appeared
and was practiced with lim­itations. Wide protests appeared, some making it a
test of fellowship. Anabaptists required that all who would affiliate with them
must be baptized if their former baptism had been sprinkling. Moreover,
Aug­ustine, a teacher in the western church, taught that even children playing
baptism for shere amusement, provided the candidate went through the form used
by the priest, might observe scriptural baptism; that a child so sprinkled would
receive the same grace ob­tained when the minister officiated. Turtullian of the
eastern church negated this doctrine. Here is the first recorded germ of
division between East and West —Roman and Greek Catholics—on the subject of
bap­tism. “Anabaptist” simply means that these people were against the practice
of sprinkling for baptism. Though not affiliated with either Catholic group,
they agreed with the eastern branch on this point.

Baptists known by us today arose in England in the sixteenth century. Though
divided into about fif­teen sects, we group them into “General” and
“Parti­cular” Baptists. The latter are Calvinistic in theology, believing in
foreordination, inherited sin, the miracu­lous operation of God’s Holy Spirit in
conversion. In America, we know them as Primitive Baptists. The “General
Baptists” are American in theology, believ­ing in the freedom of the will,
conversion by teaching and affirming the possibility of apostasy. Our
Mis­sionary Baptists are a mixture of the two. Having modified their views after
embarrassing quarters through their debates of the last half century, they seek
a modified view of “Effectual calling,” deny total depravity, but stoutly affirm
the final perserverance of the saints. Nothing for baptism is valid with them
except immersion at the hands of an ordained Baptist pastor, though heaven may
be obtained without even that.

Baptists constitute the only denomination we have yet studied who have even a
semblance of right to claim religious freedom. Theoretically, they are
inde­pendent individually and congregationally. But they are entitled only to
their claim. The power of their conventions carries a public sentiment under the
cloak of loyalty equal to a written creed. In America, where Baptist doctrines
were introduced by Roger Williams and Ezekiel Holliman in the seven­teenth
century, this denomination maintains sixteen seminaries, fifty-five senior
colleges and universities, thirty-eight junior colleges and sixteen academies.
They have a zeal for God but not altogether according to knowledge. In the early
seventeenth century, the Wesleys, mem­bers of the church of England, tired of
formalism, urged a more genuinely spiritual atmosphere in wor-' ship. As
students, they adopted systematic method for study and worship. Their fellows
dubbed them “Methodists.” Rut their numbers grew. Though never so intended by
them, their efforts resulted in the Methodist church, separated today into about
sixteen factions. Their church government is episcopal, pat­terned after the
Roman Catholics and the English church. “Neither congregational nor individual
inde­pendence is known among them. Their discipline de- lares that God has
neither body nor parts, declares that Christ died and arose from the dead to
reconcile God to us, whereas the Bible declares the opposite, and it affirms
that man is justified by faith only though James says he is not. And applicants
for Methodist membership subscribe and agree to support these church doctrines,
true or false. In the early nineteenth century, a movement, under the leadership
of Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, and others, took form in
America, known in history as “The Disciple Movement/’ The Campbells dissociated
themselves from the Presbyter­ians and joined for a while with certain in the
Bap­tist communion, who also were grieved over the reli­gious conditions of
their time. Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and Address clearly recognizes all
denom­inations as churches of God, regardless of tenets and practices. That view
was too broad. Furthermore, Mr. Campbell led in the formation of a society for
the spread of simple New Testament evangelism. We can not indorse that society.
Alexander Campbell makes conversion wholly intellectual and almost mystically
philosophic, failing to recognize the emotional. I do not believe that doctrine
without modifications. But their basis of unity was sound, because Scriptural.

At’ this point, I invite you to journey with me through six centuries of Bible
history for a parallel. Israel’s first king began humble but died haughty and
presumptuous. David lived a noble life, with one ex­ception. Solomon’s humility
at inauguration soon shift­ed and was lost in idolatry. The nation had started
downward. Through four hundred years, we trace the divided kingdom. Israel had
nineteen kings. Not one was good. Judah had twenty. About seven could be
praised. We carefully follow God’s efforts at reform. Elijah predicted three
years of drouth and it came. The widow of Zarephath was blessed for her care for
him. We walk with him up Mt. Carmel to see God’s fire attest that Elijah was
divinely commissioned. We watch the cloud out over the Mediterranean become a
deluge and end the drouth. Still God’s people go down­ward. The chariots of God
bear away Elijah in our presence and we behold Elisha succeed him. Under his
simple direction, Naaman dips seven times in the Jordan and heals his leprosy.
Still the nation goes downward. Jonah moves a hundred and twenty thou­sand
heathen in Ninevah with one sermon, but a doz­en prophets preaching every day
cannot change God’s own people. Still they plunge downward. Isaiah pleads,
“Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made like wool; though they be
red as crimson, they shall be as snow.” Jeremiah laments, “0 that mine eyes were
fountains of tears, that I might weep day and night for my people.” Still they
downward hasten. At last, God moves a heathen king, Nebuchadnezzar, to capture
his people, rob their temple and burn their city, then hold them captives
seventy years. With their city in ashes and his name a hiss, God remains silent,
just that his people might be refined. It was Danieln Who finally confessed
Israel’s sins and prayed to go back home. And it was a glorious day when God
moved Cyrus to say, “All Israel may go home.” We are moved as we watch them pack
and prepare . Old men and women are happy and the children gleeful; waiting for
the departing day to come. Ezra and Nehemiah lead the movements. But more than
seventy years are re­quired to finish the wTork. Compromises must be re­jected,
debris cleared away, foundations laid, mixed marriages broken up and
super-structures built. It required a Nehemiah to revive and push to
culmina­tion the work of restoration.

If God would move a heathen king to start a move­ment back home and be patient
through seventy years until reconstruction was complete, it might not be
in­consistent to believe that, in our Restoration move­ment, he would use men
largely blinded with religious error to reveal “Here a little and there a
little” until the walls of Zion have been rebuilt and his glorious worship
restored. The Nehemiah of the Reformation is the Campbell movement. “Back to the
Bible” was its plea. Every point in Calvin’s theology denied the freedom of both
the individual and the local church. Creeds written by men imposed uninspired
interpreta­tions as matters of faith. Every existing form of church government
bound similar imperfection and thereby rendered impossible the freedom intended
in the “Whosoever will” of the Holy Scriptures. There­fore, these Nehemiahs
said: “Do away with all human names for churches of God, burn all creeds and
take the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice, return to the simple New
Testament form of church govern­ment, insist only upon essentials as matters of
faith and exercise charity in matters of opinion. The movement was never
intended to start another church, nor is that its purpose today. Its purpose was
the removal of all causes of division, the reformation of all religious bodies
doctrinally and morally and the unity of all God’s people upon the Bible. That
is the purpose of the movement today. The greatest heroes since blew Testament
times have been those who stood bravely against public sentiment for plain
unostentatious faith and practice. The only two bonds of union known are:
External authority, demanding conformity, and ::nner urge, born of fra ternal
love and patriotic, reverence. The one is cold, unnatural, unreal. The other is
warm, natural and genuine. God’s heroes are the men and women whose warm hearts
keep the fires of Bible faith burning. Our task is more than a reformation of
reforma­tions. It is more than the restatement of doctrine so well outlined a
century ago. We owe our children and our God the doctrine they taught purged of
its imper­fections. And more, we owe a doctrine flavored of mercy and love. Who
deviates as to truth or descends as to sublimity of spirit or nobility of
purpose is an unworthy servant.

Justification by faith a doctrine full of comfort. It makes impossible Galvin’s
doctrines of total deprav­ity, foreord1 nation and effectual calling. But saving
faith is exercised not in the joy that it disproves such errors but rather that
it unlocks the stores of divine mercy.

Repentance, being both cessation of evil doings and remorse for sins past, both
exalts the penitent with men and elevates his standing with God. But true
re­pentance is comparatively oblivious of such exaltations and even almost
wishes them unreal. It comes as a fruit of faith, yet it argues less of its
place as to order than it prays for its genuineness.

Doctrinally, baptism is a burial >n water, without which no responsible ahen has
promise of pardon. But baptism is more than submersion. It is more than
compliance with church expectations. It is more than compliance with (tod’s
commandment, understanding such to be a condition of pardon. Love for God does
not begin on the other side of baptism. “Faith with no antecedent love” does not
justify. Sorrow* for sin does not precede a love for him who forgives. “I am
nothing without love” applies to the sinner as well as the Christian. The Savior
said ail the law nangs upon love for God and man.

Transubstantiation we believe to have originated in Catholic Mysticism, but,
true or false, that part is in God’s hands, and he does his part well. A
worshipping mind, at the time of communion, argues neither Cath­olic
transubstantiation nor Lutheran Consubstantia- tion. It makes sure of its own
pure self, “In memory of him.” Our part is God’s doctrine given to the world in
humility and with love. The church today if confronted with two equally
precarious extremes. The ultra liberal extreme, deter­mined to avoid sectarian
bigotry, extends its arms be­yond the limits of truth and sacrifices eternal
princi­ples. The ultra-conservative, resentful of and deter­mined to avoid these
sacrifices, withdrawn from even legitimate methods and becomes incased with
wilful lethargy, stifling the spiritual atmosphere. We xnust avo1 d both
extremes.

Let us know that not all sectarian dogmas are bound within the lids of books.
Let us know that not all hu­man creeds, were formed in public councils. Let us
know that the men who published human creeds were not by nature, of necessity,
more given to dogmatism or religious dictatorship than we. Let us know, that we
are susceptible to all the errors religious thinkers have made from the death of
John the apostle to the close of the Reformation period. In fact, shall we say
and should we say that the reformation, inside and out, is closed? Let us know
that true loyalty unto God consists, in supporting every righteous cause. Its
test is not the support of one religious publication, one orphan’s home, one
missionary, and one religious, edu­cational institution, opposing another merely
because it is not our favorite. It consists in supporting all of these
financially, morally and, more devoutly, if pos­sible, in prayers. Let the
individual know that he may secure every helpful suggestion possible from
religious periodicals, from public sermons or private conversa­tion and from
Bible classes designed for that purpose. But let him also know that his chief
seat of learning is to be from a personal search of the sacred page at the alter
of prayer.

Sermons must be preached, therefore sermon out­lines are essential. Sectarian
arguments must be an­swered and error must be exposed. Interesting things about
the Bible are both scholarly and helpful. But the primary purpose of a religious
school or all Bible classes is not teaching amateurs sermon outlines, or how to
meet sectarian arguments. The primary pur­poses of Bible study are: To learn,
not what men have said God said or meant, but what God really has said; to
cultivate a deep reverence for what God has said because he said it; to develop
a growing desire for more of his holy, high ideals; to learn what it means
really and truly to trust God under all circumstances; to develop a deep
appreciation of all his promises: to learn the meaning of repentance and
self-sacrifice; and finally, to develop a genuine love for God and our fel-
lowmen. He who learns these will know the truth and, with it, be able to meet
the error. He will have ser­mons which the mere theologian or argumentarian can
never have. And what he says will not be dry fodder, grown on the stalks of
speculation, prejudice, or sec­tarian disputation. But the truth he knows,
flavored with his burning love for God and man, will be the bread of life,
broken to the hungry thousands. Our part as God’s people is the teaching of
God’s doctrine, as his word, spoken in humility and with love.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: -THE CHURCH AND PROTESTANTISM
========================================================================

The Church and Protestantism THE CHURCH AND PROTESTANTISM A. Hugh Clark The
speakers of this lectureship who have preceded me on this platform have set
before you the church of our Lord during Apostolic days, its subsequent
apos­tasy, or departure from the faith, culminating in the Roman Hierarchy. In
these lectures you have been privileged to watch this movement as it grew and
de­veloped from a beginning apparently small and trivial to the greatest power
recorded in world history.

It seems to me that it is a significant fact and one that should make a profound
impression upon the mind of every student of this history that from those first
seemingly small and insignificant departures from the simplicity of the ancient
order should come an evil so momentous in its influence upon the world. An evil
which well nigh destroyed from the face of the earth for hundreds of years that
church for which our bless­ed Lord had died. The development of Papal Power
through greed and graft and usurpation is the great outstanding fact of the ten
centuries of the middle ages. Watching each succeeding step of the development
of papal power we have finally seen the Pope sitting and claiming to be the
universal bishop and head of the church. And still not satisfied in his greed
for power we have seen him usurp one by one the powers and prerogatives of the
civil rulers until he assumes the rulership of nations, above kings and
emperors. As evidence of this su­premacy and usurpation of the papacy in civil
as well as religious power during the medieval age I need but to refer to the
example of Emperor Henry IV, who, having taken offense at Hildebrande, summoned
a synod of German bishops and led them to vote the deposition of the Pope.
Hildebrande retaliated with an excommunication, absolving all the subjects of
Hen­ry IV from their allegiance and leaving the. Emperor absolutely powerless
under the Papal ban. In January 1077,. the Emperor with bare feet and clad, in
wool, the garb of a penitent, stood for three days before the gate of the Pope’s
castle in Canossa in northern Italy, in order to make his submission and receive
absolution. Also I might mention the Concordat of Worms in which after a war
fomented by the Pope which lasted two years and devastated Germany, Henry V, was
com­pelled to yield to the Pope in the matter of investiture, and in 1122
subscribed the Concordat. Pope Innocent III. declared in his inaugural address,
“The successor of St. Peter stand midway between God and man; be­low God, above
man; judge of all, judged by none.” And in one of his official letters he wrote
that ,to the Pope “has been committed not only the whole church but the whole
world,” with “the right of finally dis­posing the imperial and all other
crowns.” And what shall I more say? for time will fail me if I tell of Alexander
III. and of the demands he made and the accessions he received of Frederick
Barbarossa at Ven­ice in 1177, Gregory X. and his compelled subserviency on the
part of Emperor Rudolph of Hapsburg; Ale­xander VL. a monster of iniquity;
Julius LL. a poli­tician and warrior; Lea X. with his sale of indulgences; these
with their successors who through their Papal powers and assumptions wrought
unrighteousness and havoc, lived in licentiousness and lust, luxury and ease,
and wherever possible subdued kings and emperors and made desolate every
authority, civil and ecclesiastic, that dared to oppose them. With this brief
review of the ecclesiastical history of the medieval centuries before us, and
the consequent necessity of a religious reformation impressed upon us, let us
now look to history of Protestantism. We shall see that the history of
Protestantism is the his­tory of the great Reformation of the 16th century. The
Encyclopedia Brittanica says protestant is “the generic name for an adherent of
those churches which base their teaching on the principles of the reforma­tion.
The name is derived from the formal ‘Protesta- tio’ handed in by the evangelical
states of the empire, including some of the more important princes and im­perial
cities, against the recess of the Diet of Spires (1529), which decreed that the
religious status quo was to be. preserved, that no innovations were to be
introduced in those states which had not hitherto in­troduced them and that the
mass was everywhere to be tolerated. The name protestant seems to have been
first applied to the protesting princes by their oppon­ents, and it soon came to
be used indiscriminately of all adherents of the reformed religion.” The
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by Jas. Hastings informs us that
“Protestant at first meant Lutherans as opposed alike to Zwinglians and Papists.
Then came a double development. On one side the Romanists persisted in
stigmatizing the here­tics of the reformation all over Europe as Lutherans; on
the other the heretics themselves came to adopt from the Lutherans the common
name of Protestants. The unifying force was the consciousness of a common cause
against Rome.” Hence the words ‘protestant’ and ‘Protestantism’ in their
ecclesiastical meaning and usage become identified with the cause and followers
of the Reformation.

Before we pass to a brief discussion of the reforma­tion period proper, there
are a few movements ante­cedent to the date which historians have set as the
definite date of the beginning of this great movement, which I wish to mention,
and which in reality might be referred to as beginnings of reform. These sprang
up in southern France, in northern Italy, in England, in Bohemia and then again
in Italy. In southern France there were the noted Albigenese, or “Pruitans” who
vigorously repudiated the author­ity of tradition, circulated the New Testament,
opposed the Romish doctrines of image worship, purgatory, priestly claims,
infant baptism, the mass etc. Pope Innocent III sent a “Crusade” against them in
1208 and almost depopulated the region killing not only the heretics, but others
as well.

About this same time (1170) Peter Walde, a mer­chant of Lyons, began to
circulate, preach and explain the Scriptures, appealing to them against the
usages and doctrines of the Romish church. His followers were known as
Waldenses. Because of their fiery op­position to clerical usurpation and
profligacy, they were also the subjects of a bitter persecution; but driven out
of France they settled in northern Italy, where in the face of continued
persecution they have endured. In 1324 John Wyclif was born in England. He was
educated in the University of Oxford, became a doctor of theology and a
recognized leader in the councils. He launched a movement for reform in England
by attacking the mendicant friars, and the system of mon- asticism; rejecting
and opposing the authority of the Pope; and writing against the doctrines of
transub- tantiation, auricular confession, indulgences, images in worship,
canonization, pilgrimages, celibacy, etc., etc. The followers of Wyclif were
called Lollards, and at one time were numerous but through persecution were
finally extirpated. His greatest work perhaps, was his translation of the New
Testament finished in 1380.

John Huss, of Bohemia, (1369 to 1415) was a stu­dent of the writings of Wyclif,
a preacher and defend­er in his doctrines, especially opposing the authority of
the Pope. At one time he was rector of the Uni­versity of Prague, and held a
commanding influence throughout Bohemia. The Pope excommunicated him and placed
the entire City of Prague under an inter­dict for as long as he should remain
there. Huss re­tired, but after two years, upon assurance from the Emperor of a
safe conduct, he consented to go before the Council at Constance. The soleiim
pledge of the Emperor was disregarded and Huss was thrown into prison, where
after repeated efforts to make him re­cant had failed, he was condemned and
burned alive the same day, July 6, 1415.

Jerome Savonarola (1452 to 1498) preached with a zeal comparable to the prophets
of old against the evils of his day. The theme of his eloquence being the
cor­ruption of both church and state. But he too, was ex­communicated by the
Pope, condemned, hanged, and his body burned in the public square at Florence.

Embracing the work of at least some of these just mentioned, as well as the
period of the Great Reformation which we are approaching, we have what is known
in history as the Renaissance. The meaning of the word itself e. g. (re-) again,
plus (nasci) to be born, hence a new birth, a coming to life again, an
awaken­ing, suggests the spirit of the age. For hundreds of years in general the
masses had been kept in ignorance and superstition, deprived by the Roman
Hierarchy of either the right or privilege of freedom of thought and personal
investigation. But now there is a gen­eral awakening; and the leaders in this
movement were generally not monks nor priests, but laymen. The movement was not
only religious, bringing a new in­terest in the study of the Scriptures, Greek
and He­brew, and a search for the true foundations of faith without regards for
the dogmas and doctrines of Rome, but extended to the sciences, art and
literature. This spirit of personal freedom of thought and individual
inquisition and aggression became at once the leading element in the opposition
to that regime with, which ignorance was and had been the mother of devotion.
The invention of the printing press by Gutenbur'g (1455) and the discovery that
books could be printed from movable types was revolutionary in its effect up­on
the methods of the dissemination of knowledge. It is a very significant fact as
showing the desire of the age, that the first book printed by Gutenburg was the
Bible. Through the printing press the Bible was brought into common use. It was
translated into the languages of the people and circulated through all of
Europe, with the result that those who read it at once came to realize that the
doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church were not the doctrine of Christ and of
the Apostles.

During this period of awakening and spiritual un­rest that was pervading all
Europe, the reigning Pope, Leo X, claiming to need large sums of money for the
completion of St. Peter’s church in Rome, and to wage a war against the Turks,
(though this was doubted by many) arranged the sale of indulgences. John Tetzel,
a Dominican friar, carried on the sale in Germany, which consisted of the
selling to individuals for them­selves or on the behalf of friends, living
or.dead, a cer­tificate. signed by the Pope and purporting to bestow pardon of
all sins without confession, repentance, pen­ance, or absolution by a priest.

It is at this time that the Great Reformation of the 16th century bursts forth
under the leadership of Mar­tin Luther, himself a Monk, and a teacher in the
Uni­versity of Wittenberg. Tetzel, with great acclaim, was traveling through
Germany where the common people received him as a messenger from heaven. He was
a popular orator and is said that after a sermon from him the people would
eagerly embrace this rare offer of salvation from the punishment of sin; that
with the burning of candles they approached, paid their money, and received the
letter of indulgence which they cher­ished as a passport to heaven. Luther had
already the summer before (1516) delivered a sermon protesting against trust in
indulgences, but now to have the bar­ter carried on at the very threshold of his
own door was both a shock to his intelligence and a scandal. He felt it to be
his duty to make a protest, and that to fail to do so would be to betray his own
conscience.

After serious deliberation, he determined upon his course; a course more far
reaching in its effects upon himself and the world than even he could possibly
realize at the time. Accordingly he prepared 95 Latin Theses upon the subject of
indulgences, and upon the 31st day of October, 1517, accompanied with a
chal­lenge for public discussion of the same, he nailed them to the doors of the
castle church at Wittenberg. And this is the date fixed upon by historians as
the begin­ning of the Great Reformation. As one might expect Luther’s Theses met
with both a hearty response and a fiery opposition. They were gladly acclaimed
by liberal scholars, and by German patriots who were secretly desirous of
emancipation from Italian Papal control, and multitude of the people from the
common ranks. But they were vehemently opposed and condemned by a clerical
hierarchy, the monastic orders, and by all the leaders and followers of
scholastic theology and traditional authority. Even some of Luther’s own friends
now became his most ir­reconcilable enemies. And the consequence of the
con­troversy was that Luther was forced into conflict with the papal authority,
upon which the doctrine and sale of indulgencies were made to rest. The great
question being whether that authority was infallible and final, or subject to
correction by the Scriptures and a gen­eral council.

Luther committed himself to the latter position which he defended vigorously.
Yet he denied just as vigorously the accusation of heresy, claiming that he
taught nothing contrary to the Scriptures, the ancient fathers, the ecumenical
councils and the decrees of the Popes. From which, and some of his subsequent
activ­ities, it is perfectly evident that Luther, to begin with, had no idea of
a permanent break with the Catholic Church. The first reaction of Pope Leo X was
to ignore the Wittenberg movement; but later, when it had become dangerous, and
he had failed in an effort to have Luth­er brought to Rome to answer for heresy,
he arranged the Diet of Augsburg to which he sent Cardinal Caje- tan as the
Papal Legate. Luther arrived at Augsburg October 7, 1518, where he was received
kindly. He was brought before the Italian Cardinal three times and each time it
was demanded that he retract his er­rors and declare absolute submission to the
Pope. This, Luther resolutely refused, declaring that he could do nothing
against his conscience; that one must obey God rather than man; that he had the
Scripture on his side; that even Peter was once reproved by Paul for misconduct
(Galatians 2:11), and that surely his successor was not infallible. Whereupon
Cajetan threatened him with excommunication, having already the papal man­date
in his hand, and dismissed him with the words: “Revoke, or do not come again
into my presence.” With the issue thus squarely drawn, and with no intention of
recanting, Luther secretly departed from Augsburg and returned home. And just
here, we have another significant step in Luther’s final separation from Rome,
e.g., anticipation of the papal sentence of excommunication, on November 28th he
formally and solemnly appealed from the Pope to a general council. This move was
a formal rejection of the authority of the Pope, yet does not deny the authority
and in­fallibility of the general Church Council. However, the year following,
at the Liepzig Disputation, in de­bate with Dr. Eck, he changed his opinion on
the au­thority of the Councils; holding that Huss, of Bohemia, was unjustly
condemned and burned by the Council of Constance; that a general Council as well
as a Pope may err, and had no right to impose any article of faith not founded
in the Scriptures.

Here, at Leipzig, during these debates which lasted for almost three weeks, for
the first time Luther de­nied the divine right and origin of the papacy, and the
infallibility of a general council. Henceforward he had nothing left but the
Divine Scriptures, his faith in the God they revealed, and his own private
judgment and understanding. Surely the Reformation is well on its Way.

After the Leipzig disputation, Dr. Eck went to Rome and with the assistance of
Cardinal Cajetan and oth­ers, obtained the condemnation of Luther. With
con­siderable difficulty the bull of excommunication was drawn up in May, and
after several amendments was completed June 15th, 1520. This bull is especially
important as a historical docu­ment. First, because it was the Papal answer to
Luth­er’s Theses. Second, because it was the last bull ad­dressed to Latin
Christendom as an undivided whole, and the first which was disobeyed by a large
part of it.

Though not without considerable opposition, espe­cially in northern Germany, the
bull was everywhere published and carried out. In many places Luther’s books and
writings were gathered together and burned. Provoked by this, Luther determined
upon a like procedure with the Papal bull. Accordingly with consid­erable
ceremony, on the 10th of December 1520, at the gates of Wittenberg, before a
gathering of University professors, students, and the people, he solemnly
com­mitted the bull of excommunication, with copies of the cannons and laws, and
some of the writings of certain others, notably some of the writing of his
enemy, Dr. Eck, to the flames, with these words (taken no doubt from Joshua
7:25) ; “As thou (the Pope) hast vexed the Holy One of the Lord, may the eternal
fire vex thee!” This act constituted Luther’s final renunciation of the Roman
Catholic Church. And to the end of his life to this position he adhered with
unchanging firmness. When he was summoned the following year to the Diet at
Worms, he considered it a call from God to bear witness to the truth. He said “I
shall go to Worms, though there were as may devils there, as tiles on the
roofs.” And when brought before that august assemblage and the question was put:
“Wilt thou de­fend all the books which thou dost acknowledge to be thine, or
recant some part?” he answered in that well known declaration, everywhere
considered today as marking an epoch in the history of religious liberty :
“Unless I am refuted and convicted by testimonies of the scriptures or by clear
arguments (since I believe neither the Pope nor the councils alone; it being
evi­dent that they have often erred and contradicted them­selves) , I am
conquered by the Holy Scriptures quoted by me, and my conscience is bound in the
word of God; I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is unsafe and
dangerous to do anything against the conscience.” Just here there were certain
who interrupted him with questions; and being pressed and threatened, amidst the
excitement and confusion of the audience, he ut­tered the last statement: “Here
I stand. (I cannot do otherwise) God help me! Amen.” The Emperor, Charles V, had
given Luther a prom­ise of safe conduct, but was now urged to seize him, on the
ground that no faith was to be kept with heretics, but he permitted him to leave
Worms in peace.

While Luther was traveling homeward, according to a wisely arranged scheme of
the Elector Frederick, for his own safety he was seized and imprisoned in the
castle at Wartburg. Here he remained for almost a year; during which time he
translated the New Tes­tament, and wrote many letters which were delivered by
secret messengers. He also was kept informed con­cerning the progress of his
cause by letters from some of his friends. And later when exigencies demanded
came again to Wittenburg where—with the same fine spirit and courage which had
hitherto characterized him he preached against abuses in the ranks of his own
followers, especially rashness and efforts at coercion. He said, “I will preach,
speak, write, but I will force no one; for faith must be voluntary........The
Word is almighty, and takes captive the hearts.” The reformation now spreads
over Germany with almost an irresistible impulse. Luther continued the use of
both word and pen to the utmost of his time and strength. It is true that during
this period a number of conflicting doctrines and opinions sprang up among the
reformers themselves, occasioning many a hard fought battle in the field of
polemics, still all recog­nized a unity in their common cause against Rome. And
as Protestantism continued to advance, the execution of the Edict of Worms
became less and less practicable or possible. With the result that at the first
imperial Diet of Speiers (1526) the Protestant Princes for the first time dared
to profess their faith, and were great­ly assisted by the delegates from those
imperial cities where the cause of the reformation had made progress.

It was the unanimous conclusion of this Diet that a general council should be
called to settle the church question; and that a temporary truce, or armistice,
should be recognized in regard to the execution of the Edict of Worms, providing
that, m the meantime, “ev­ery state shall so live, rule, and believe as it may
hope and trust to answer before God and his imperial Maj­esty From this and the
continued protest of this same group at a second Piet at Speiers (1529) the
fol­lowers of the Reformation acquired the name of. Pro­testants, and their
cause the name of Protestantism.Since Martin Luther is recognized by historians
as the instigator of the Great Reformation and Protestan­tism, I have undertaken
to be much larger and more particular in the study of the history pertaining to
him than I shall be in the study of those who are yet to be brought into this
discussion.Contemporaneous with the German reformation, though independent of
it, there sprang up a like move ­ment in Switzerland under the leadership of
ITlric Zwrngli. Though himself a piiest, tie had been a.friend and pupil of
Thomas Wyttenbach, from whom he had learned much of the doctrines of the.
Reformation which he afterward preached and defended with such signal success.
His first open revolt against the Roman Catholic system came while he was a
priest at Finsiedeln (1516), which a bejewreled and supposedly mir­acle-wrorking
image of the Virgin had made a favorite resort of pilgrims. He so effectively
denounced pil­grimages as superstitious that his sermons were talked of in Rome,
though no action was taken against him. In 1518, as preacher in the Cathedral of
Zurich, he ve­hemently opposed the doctr ine of indulgences.

Then followed other denunciations of Homan Catho­lic practices and doctrines,
until Zurich, the authorities of which supported Zwingli, and the people of
which adhered to him, became thoroughly Protestant; and in 1522 he definitely
broke from Rome. The reformation in Switzerland soon became more radical than
that in Germany; for Zwingli went much farther than Luther whose doctrine of
consubstantia- tion was very little different, at best, from the Catho­lic
doctrine of Transubstantiation, and which was nev­er very clear to even Luther
himself. In 1531, the Forest Cantons, of Roman Catholic faith, made war on
Zurich, whose troops Zwingli accompanied as chap­lain. While in the thick of an
engagement he was killed, October 11, 1531. The Swiss Reformation, however, was
to find a later leader in John Calvin, the greatest theologian since Augustine.

Calvin was born in France, where at the age of twelve, he was dedicated to the
church. In his studies he soon came to entertain certain doubts concerning the
priesthood, and became dissatisfied with the teach­ing of the Roman Catholic
church. He turned to the study of law but soon became a convert to the doctrines
of the reformation and was forced to leave France. He came to Basel,
Switzerland, where he completed and and published, at the age of twenty-seven
years, his famous and learned work, the Institutes of Religion; which may be
said to have become the basis of Prote­stant denominational doctrines. The cause
of the reformation had now begun to show itself in many places over Europe.
Norway, Sweden and Denmark all accepted the doctrines of Luther. In France the
cause gathered quite a large following under Lefevre (1512) who accepted the
doctrines of the reformers, preaching especially the doctrine of justifi­cation
by faith. In the Netherlands Holland became protestant, but Belgium remained
Catholic. The next outstanding break with the Catholic Church came in England
under Henry the VIII, who became incensed at the Pope because he would not
sanction his divorce from queen Catherine, from whom he wished to be freed that
he might marry the young­er and more pleasing Ann Boleyn. Under the Pope’s
refusal and ultimate excommunication, he established the church of England, of
which, according to the edict of parliament, he was made the absolute head on
earth. The doctrines of the reformation were early intro­duced into Scotland,
but made slow progress under the harsh opposition of Cardinal Beaton. Cardinal
Beaton was murdered, and soon after the Queen regent, Mary of Guise, died and
the movement found a new leader in John Knox, 1559. Knox has been called “the
Luther of the north;” and by his determined and un­compromising prosecution of
his cause against Rome, even in the face of the papal reaction under Queen Mary
of Scots, he was able to firmly establish the cause of Protestantism in
Scotland.

During these years (1545 to 1563) there sprang up a movement within the Catholic
Church itself known as the Counter-Reformation. This movement was in­tended to
investigate and put an end to those abuses which had called forth the
reformation, to subvert the Protestant faith, and to regain the lost ground in
Eur­ope. Though it is admitted that some reform was made, it was of little
avail. The issue was squarely drawn between the Catholic Church and those of the
reformation. Active persecution broke out and every Roman Catholic government
sought by fire and sword to extirpate the Protestant faith. In France it
reach­ed its zenith in the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day. In Spain, in the
Inquisition where untold thousands were tortured and burned and where as in
Bohemia, the cause was utterly crushed out. In Germany in 1618, a war broke out
between the Catholic and Protestant states which lasted for thirty years. It is
known in history as the Thirty Years War. Finally at Westphalia, in 1648, the
war came to an end, and the boundaries of the Roman Catholic and Protestant
states were fixed, securing a legal existence to the Protestant faith throughout
Germany. These boundaries have continued substantially the same ever since, and
it is at that point that the Period of the Ref­ormation is generally considered
to have ended. As the sixteenth century dawned, the Roman Cath­olic Church was
the only church in Western Europe. But with the coming of the next century every
land of northern Europe west of Russia, had broken away from Rome and had
established its own national church. The question may be raised, what has the
recitation of all this long history to do with the church of Christ? Simply
this: We have been speaking on the theme of the church and Protestantism. And in
the recitation of this history several things have been clearly and def­initely
set forth.

First, we have learned that the Catholic Church is not the church of Christ. It
may be said to be an in­stitution which grew out of certain departures from the
faith on the part of the church of our Lord in the early centuries.

Second, we have seen that because of the extrava­gancies and abuses of the
Catholic Church in the medie­val age there grew up from the fourteenth to the
six­teenth centuries a movement in opposition to Catholi­cism known as the Great
Reformation; the adherents of which, because of their protest against Papal
au­thority and other usages and doctrines of the Roman church, became known as
Protestants, and their cause as Protestantism.

Thirdly, it is evident therefore, that the church of Christ is neither Catholic
nor Protestant, in the sense in which these terms are used in history, in this
thesis, and are generally understood. That it antedates not only the cause of
Protestantism, but as well that mighty ecclesiasticism the evils of which gave
birth to Protestantism. And lastly, that Christians, members of the Body of
Christ, are neither Catholics nor Protestants, but only Christians. That their
origin antedates either of these, going back to the days of Peter and James and
John and Paul, and that they have their existence today sep­arate and apart from
either and all of these sects. And that the purpose of their existence is the
advance­ment of the Cause and Kingdom of our Lord and Sa­vior, Jesus Christ, and
the opposition of Catholicism, Protestantism, or any other “ism” that exalts
itself against the plain teachings of the New Testament.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: -THE CHURCH AND DENOMINATIONALISM
========================================================================

The Church and Denominationalism THE CHURCH AND DENOMINATIONALISM A. Hugh Clark
In my former address it has been conclusively shown I think, that Protestantism
as a movement is the prod­uct, or outgrowth, of the Reformation of the sixteenth
century. Not that there had not been individuals or even groups who had opposed
or protested against the corruptions of the Roman Catholic church before the
reformation in Germany; there had been. . But it was at this time and place,
about the middle of the six­teenth century in Germany, that the cause gathered
such power and influence as to be recognized and des­ignated as a definite
movement of protest against the Catholic church, and hence its combined
following became known as protestants and the cause as Protes­tantism. A study
of the history of denominationalism as a movement, leads no less certainly to
the conclusion that it is the product, or outgrowth of Protestantism, than the
study of Protestantism has established the fact that it is the outgrowth of the
Reformation. Not that there were not denominations in existence at any time
prior to the Reformation and Protestantism; to say this would be a mistake. Even
the Catholic church itself, the corruptions of which gave rise to the
Reformation and Protestantism, is a denomination. .There is also the history of
numerous other denominations along through the period before and during the
Lutheran Reformation. The statement therefore, that the Re­formation, or
Protestantism, gave birth to Denomina­tionalism, is untrue. However, just as
Protestantism received its greatest impetus and force in the Reformation, in
like manner, denominationalism as we know it today, at a later time received its
greatest impetus and force in the ranks and among the followers of
Protestantism.

Let us see how all this came about. As a natural consequence, and not
necessarily through any fault of the man, each of the great leaders of the
reformation had his personal following. A thing most difficult to avoid, though
a religious teacher be ever so much op­posed to such a thing, and ever so
innocent of seeking such sectarian self exploitation. There were those who
followed Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and even Christ, in the same spirit. See 1 Cor.
1-10:15. These leaders had also their doctrinal differences which were more or
less well defined in the mind of each of them and in the minds of his followers.
However, there was among them all the unifying influence of a common cause
against Rome. Thus, for more than a hundred years they existed, suffering
together untold hardships, pri­vations, and persecutions, which were heaped upon
them by the Roman Catholic church. The last thirty years of this time covers the
great carnage known' in history as the Thirty Years War,' which involved not
only Germany but almost all of Europe. Finally, in the year 1648, the war came
to an end, certain bound­aries were fixed and territories assigned, and
Prot­estantism had gained the principal thing for which, from its incipiency, it
had struggled—the right to exist as a religious movement separate and apart from
both the Catholic church and the State. This is the date which, in history, is
considered to have ended the period known as the Reformation Period. Not that
there was a conciliation of the differances between the opposing forces of
Catholicism and Protestantism, but because of the rights and privileges granted
to Protestantism by the treaty of Westphalia, there was of necessity a cessation
of hostilities. Cath­olicism ceased to persecute and Protestantism ceased to
protest in the virile and violent way which had hitherto characterized them.

Reference has already been made to the fact that there were more or less well
defined doctrinal differ­ences among the leaders of Protestantism, and more or
less well organized sects or groups, variously de­nominated, based upon these
doctrinal differences which had already been reduced to Creeds, or state­ments
of faith. With the cessation of open hostilities with Rome in the form of war
and bitter persecution, and the pass­ing of the cohesive influence of a common
struggle for the right to exist, there came about a change in spirit and
attitude within the ranks of Protestantism itself. Leaders who had heretofore
given their attention primarily to opposition to Rome and the acquisition of
certain religious rights and privileges now turned their attention to the
theological and doctrinal differences existing among themselves. Many hard
battled were fought in the field of polemics which were doubtless influenced
more by the theology of Augustine, Luther and Calvin than by the teaching of
Peter, James and John. This could have but one result; breaches were widened,
the party spirit more deeply entrenched, with each religious group or fellowship
with its creed and name more distinctly circumscribed and set off from the rest.
And Denominationalism had spread her sails under fair skies with favorable
winds. The future years, even to the present time, have been but an unfolding of
what such a condition as this would indicate, or the bringing to maturity or
harvest, the multitude of religious sects, parties or denominations which grow
in the field of religion today.

Perhaps a few words about the terms church and denominationalism may not be
amiss. The subject of this entire lectureship has been the church of which we
read in the New Testament in contrast with other organizations and systems of
teaching of which we read in history. Many of the preceding speakers have
defined the word church, so that I consider it unneces­sary for me to give here
a repetition of what is meant by that term.

There should be some understanding, however, about the meaning of the word
denominationalism. The word itself has come to be a very familiar word, and yet,
I fear its meaning is not very clear even in the minds of those who have sought
to tell us what is meant by the term. It seems to be pretty well understood that
whatever it is, it is something that should be opposed. But unless we shall give
more attention to a clear understanding of the nature and spirit of the evil we
are opposing than to the act of opposition, we shall fall into the error of
“building up that which we seek to destroy.” And when we shall have finished our
campaign of opposition, whether we recognize it or not, we shall only have
succeeded in establishing upon the ruins of the denomination we have destroyed,
another, perhaps larger in number and more radical in spirit.

These remarks are by no means intended to convey the idea that I do not think
denominationalism should be opposed. I believe it should be much more
uncom­promisingly opposed than is common today, yet also, more understanding^
opposed. And it might help some to know that the definition most generally held
by all religionists, preachers included, that a denomi­nation is “just anybody
else but US” is hardly suf­ficient as a guide in the opposition. Is it possible
to frame a definition of the terms “denomination”and “denominationalism” which
can be un­derstood, and which is based not alone upon the ety­mology of these
words but upon the scriptures as well? I think it is, and shall therefore make
an effort to do so.

Any religious group, sect or party, unscriptural in either name, creed, or both,
and loving, or making more of the spirit of the sect or party than of Christ; or
any group, sect or party in religion which is scrip­tural in either name, creed,
or both, yet loving, or making more of the spirit of the sect or party than of
Christ, is a denomination.

All such groups in the aggregate, or when taken to­gether, constitute
denominationalism. From these statements it will be seen that an
un­denominational religious group is a group or body of religious people,
scriptural in name and creed, and making nothing of the spirit of sect or party,
but ev­erything of the spirit of Christ. As previously stated, the Roman
Catholic church stands as the oldest among existing denominations. Unscriptural
in name, principally pagan in doctrine, its history is replete with the
usurpation of power, cor­rupt practices, compelled ignorance, and the exercise
of persecution, fire and the sword to enforce its sectarian party spirit. It is
indeed the denomination among denominations.

Next in point of time, are the Oriental Catholics of whom the same things should
be said, though they dif­fer from the Roman Catholics in several cardinal
points. .

Passing by the Albigenses, the Waldensians, the Lol­lards, and other
denominations of the medieval ages, let us come to the sixteenth century. It was
at this time that the Lutheran Reformation began in Ger­many under the
leadership of Martin Luther, around whom, though he earnestly opposed it, his
followers crystallized under the name of Lutherans. Now the New Testament has
absolutely nothing to say about the name Lutheran, either as the name of the
church or as the name of the individual followers of Christ who constitute the
church. Hence this body in reli­gion is unscriptural in name. But this is not
the only unscriptural thing connected with this religious or­ganization. Their
distinctively Lutheran doctrine, based upon the Augsburg Confession of Faith to
which they subscribe and not upon the New Testament, are just as unscriptural as
their name. And yet this re­ligious body loves, and makes so much more of the
spirit of the sect or party than of the spirit of Christ, that for more than
four hundred years with their dis­tinctive name and doctrines, none of which
they even claim are essential to salvation, they have perpetuated themselves as
a separate group, sect or party among the professed followers of Christ. They
are a de­nomination. If they were not denominational and sec­tarian they would
have long ago discarded their un­scriptural name, cast overboard their
unscriptural doctrines and dogmas, and have disbanded the organiza­tion in favor
of the unity of the followers of Christ.

Now it must be obvious that to name and try all the various religious bodies
that exist, by our statement of what constitutes a denomination, as we have done
in the case of the Lutheran denomination, would extend this discussion far
beyond what is possible within the utmost limit of my time, and perhaps, your
patience. But what has been said of the Lutheran denomination by way of
illustration, must be said of every other religious organization which cannot by
the New Testa­ment Scriptures, prove itself to be identical, in origin, name,
doctrine and practice, with the church of which we read on the pages of that
sacred document.

Now I am conscious of the fact that there is a field of thought suggested in the
latter half of the definition I have given of denominationalism into which I
have not entered at all. However, since this very line of thought is
particularly contemplated in the assignment made to one of the succeeding
speakers, I pass it by for the present. For the remainder of the time I shall
speak to you, it shall be my purpose to present, in contrast with that which has
gone before, the plain teaching of the New Testament with reference to the
church. And the first thing I consider to be imperatively necessary to a
profitable study of this question is that you who listen, in the very beginning,
determine to give me, insofar as is possible, a fair, impartial, unbiased and
unprejudiced hearing. This I say because I recognize that a study such as is
contemplated at this time carries us immediately into a realm where man feels
perhaps, his strongest prejudices and his tenderest emotions. I am asking,
therefore, that you lay aside your preju­dices, and that you rise above the
emotional, and that you calmly and deliberately determine to accept what­ever
Christ and the apostles have had to say upon this questiori in the Sacred
writings. This, I realize, is not an easy thing for one to do, yet, I repeat, it
is impera­tively necessary for one to come to just this disposition of heart and
attitude of mind if he would learn the truth in the field of religion, as in any
other field of thought.

1 • ’ .it . t * Now, if our minds are clear, and our hearts are open, and we are
ready to listen without either bias or preju­dice, I am ready to submit to you
my first affirmation and then to set myself to the task of bringing before you
from the language of Christ and the apostles, pas­sages which say the very thing
which I have set ojit in the premise.

“The New Testament teaches there is one church.” Now, let us notice the wording
of this statement. I have not said that it was my opinion that it would be
better for the world if there were only one church.'' I have not said that the
experiences of the religious peo- pies of the earth through the ages past have
taught us that it would be an expedient thing for us all to unite in one common
body etc., etc. But, I have said that regardless of my opinion or yours, based
upon the re­ligious experiences of the past or anything else, the New Testament
teaches there is one church. Let us notice first, the language of Jesus in
Matthew 16:18 : “And I also say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my church; And the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.” The
Lord says, “I will build my church,” not churches. “And the gates of hades shall
not prevail against it,” not them.

Since the Lord has openly expressed to his dis­ciples his determination to build
his church, he soon thereafter gives them some instruction concerning how they
should conduct themselves in the matter of offenses, when this church should
have been estab­lished. Matthew 18:15-17 : “.......Tell it to the church: and if
he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the
publican.” Here again our Lord uses such language in referring to the church as
suggests but one cnurch, and membership of all his disciples in it. And so all
through the New Testament do we find Jesus and the apostles when speaking of the
church using the singular number. In Acts 2:47 (A. V.)‘: “.......and the Lord
added to the church daily such as should be saved.” Now to which church do you
suppose the Lord added them? I suggest, that since the Lord did the adding, he
added them to his church, the one he avowed it was his purpose to build, and
which was composed at this time of the apostles and the three thousand who had
been baptized on Pen­tecost and such others as having “gladly received the word”
as it was preached by the Apostles, had obeyed it as did they, and being saved
had been added by the Lord to the church. It is to this same group that Luke
refers when he mentions the persecutions of Saul of Tarsus, Acts 8:1-3 : “And
there arose on that day a great persecution against the church which was in
Jerusalem;.......But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house, and
dragging men and women committed them to prison.” We read again, Acts 9:31 : “So
the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being
edified; ....... From this passage we see that whether Luke speaks of the church
locally, as in Jerusalem, or in a territorial sense, covering Judea and Gallilee
and Samaria, it is still just “the church.” And when he tells us of Paul’s
return from Europe and his stop at Miletus and the message of encouragement and
words of exhortation given by him to the Elders of Ephesus, Acts 20:28, it is
still just the “church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.”
Surely no man can read these passages without being impressed with the fact that
the New Testament knows and speaks of but one church, which is made up of all
the saved in Christ Jesus.

There is, however, another line of argument which leads to the same conclusion,
which I wish you to study with me briefly. It may be stated this way: When the
New Testament speaks of the church under a figure, without exception, it uses
only such figures of speech as will admit of their being only one church. For
instance, in Romans 12:4-5, and also 1 Corinthians 12:12-31, the Apostle Paul
represents the church under the figure of the human body with its many members
all of which are necessary, and which, “though they are many mem­bers” are “but
one body,” (Verse 27). Using again this same figure of speech, he tells us in
Colossians 1:18, “And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: * * *” In
Ephesians 1:22-23 these same terms are used but in an inverted order, he says,
“.....And gave him (Christ) to be head over all things to the church, which is
his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.” Christ is therefore the
“head” and the “church” is the body. Now let me ask you a question, it is this:
On the average, about how many bodies does one head have anyway, about how many
would you say? Will some­one venture an answer? Why, one head has one body of
course, and so the apostle argues that the one spir­itual head, Christ, has one
spiritual body, the church. And he commands these Ephesians in the same letter,
chapter 4 and verses 3-6, to “give diligence to keep the unity of the spirit in
the bond of peace.” For said he, ‘There is one body, and one spirit, even as
also ye were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord-, one faith, one
baptism, one God and father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in
all.” In Ephesians the fifth chapter he uses another fig­ure of speech to
represent the church which no less forcefully teaches the same truth. Paul says
here that the marriage relationship, with which we are all so familiar,
represents the relationship that obtains between Christ and his church.
Ephesians 5:22-32 : “Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the
Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the
church, being himself the saviour of the body.” Now, let us get the point: Paul
says one husband is the head of one wife and that in the same manner “Christ
also is the head of the church.” He is therefore the “one head” of the “one
church” being himself the saviour of that body. But let us read on, “But as the
church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in
everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the fchurch,
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 unto himself a
glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it
should be holy and without blemish.” Now let me ask this question: In the light
of this passage, how do conditions appear to you as they exist in the present
religious world with its more than two hundred churches, as given by the last
government census, each different from the other'in name, organization, doctrine
and practice? The efttire passage would have to be rewritten if it were made to
fit present day conditions, would it not? I believe, in order that you may see
more clearly, if possible, what I mean, I shall read the passage as it would
have been made to read to fit the present conditions: “Husbands, love your
wives, even as Christ also loved the churches, and gave himself up for them,
having cleansed them by the washing of water with the word, that he might
present the churches unto himself glorious churches, not having spot or wrinkle
or any such thing; but that they should be holy and without blemish.” Of course,
you notice at once that I have changed the passage at every place where the
apostle used the singular num­ber, substituting instead the plural number. It is
true that I have no right or authority to so change the read­ing of God's word
in this passage or in any other. Neither had men the right in their practice to
leave the divine plan as revealed in this passage and others arid establish a
multitude of churches when the divine plane calls for one. The final point which
I wish to establish before I make a few observations and close is this: The New
Testament teaches that divisions in that church are wrong. Here again, I wish
you to notice what it is I affirm. I have not said that, after some years of
ex­perience and observation, I have come to the conclu­sion that it is
inexpedient that the professed followers of Christ have become so divided, that
so many divi­sions, sects, denominations, exist, etc. I have said that the New
Testament Scriptures teach that the very existence of divisions, sects, and
denominations in the church is sinful. But before I ..introduce the passage of
Scripture upon which I base this affirmation, let me say, that in mak­ing the
principle announced in the passage applicable to denominationalism as we know it
today, I do not wish to be understood to concede the claim generally made by
denominational churches, that there is in real­ity but one church, a kind of
invisible union envelop­ing the whole of Christendom, with each one of them as a
component part of the invisible whole. This it is impossible to believe, when
the facts are thoughtfully considered, in the light of either scripture or
reason. I only intend to show that even if this were true as they claim, that
the New Testament teaches that the condition described and that exists today, is
contrary to the will of Christ and is therefore sinful. In the eighteenth
chapter of Acts of the Apostles, we have the history of the establishment of the
church at Corinth, through the labors of the Apostle Paul and those who
accompanied him on his second missionary journey. Later we have a first and
second letter ad­dressed by the apostles to that same church. In the first
letter, Chapter 1:11, he informs this Corinthian church that one from the
household of Chloe had told him of certain divisions which had sprung up in the
church. In describing the condition, he said, “Now this I mean, that each one of
you sayeth, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ”
(v. 12). Now, even if it were possible, by any means, to establish the claim of
denominationalism to which reference has already been made, we would still have
a strict parallel to the condition described by the Apostle as existing in the
Corinthian church. And in verses 10, 13-15, also in Chapter 3:1-4, we read
Paul’s condemnation of such divisions in the following lan­guage: “Now I beseech
you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the
same thing, and that there be no' divisions (greek, seisms) among you; but that
ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment. Is Christ
divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye bap­tized into the name of Paul?
I thank God that I bap­tized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius; lest any man
should say that ye were baptized into my name. And I, brethren, could not speak
unto you as unto spir­itual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ. I fed
you with milk, not with meat; for ye were not yet able to bear it; Nay, not even
now are ye able; for ye are yet carnal; for whereas there is among you jealousy
and strife, are ye not carnal, and do ye not walk after the manner of men? For
when one sayeth, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not men?”

Surely this should be enough to establish the two points I have affirmed
concerning the teaching of the New Testament relative to the church. And with
the establishment of these two points, namely, “The New Testament teaches there
is one church” and “The New Testament teaches that divisions in that church are
sinful,” the only relationship which can possibly obtain between the church of
which we read in the New Testa­ment and denominationalism, either in the church
or out of it, is one of unalterable opposition.

Now let me observe first, that there is serious need of a clearer understanding
of these things, as well as a definite committal to them, not only in theory but
in practice as well, on the part of the preachers and leaders in the church
everywhere. For because of a lack of knowledge on the part of some and a lack of
practice on the part of others, we have in the church today certain well defined
contentions which, if they have not already done so, only lack sufficient time
to develop into full-fledged denominatipns.

Secondly, it is an error of the most grievous nature, both against God and the
church, for any preacher of the gospel or elder of the church to refuse, or for
any reason to fail to faithfully teach these things to every congregation of
Christians which comes under his care or supervision, lest through their
ignorance thay fall victim to this great evil.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: -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 agaWe 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 '


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: -THE MODERN SCHISM IN THE CHURCH
========================================================================

The Modern Schism in the Church THE MODERN SCHISM IN THE CHURCH By G. C. Brewer

I. The Source of Authority in Religion. (a) The Roman Catholic claim. (b) The
battle won by Luther and the basic principle of Protestantism. (c) The failure
to apply the principle. II. The Coming of the Campbells. (a) Schism rife and
regnant. (b) A plea for the principle as a basis union. (c) The principle works.
III. Division among those who Plead for Unity. (a) First defections. (b) A
surrender of the plea. (c) Details in the departure. (d) Conditions today among
those who departed.

I. Sources of Authority in Religion Schism means division and where there is
division there is either a lack of authority or a failure to rec­ognize and
respect that authority. A company of sol­diers always moves with measured tread,
with uniform step and always starts and stops and “columns left” or “columns
right” in perfect unison because these soldiers are trained to obey orders and
each one instantly responds to the raucous call of the officer in command. There
could be the same harmony of move­ment and concert of action among religious
people if all religionists would recognize and obey one voice of authority. But
that raises a momentous question: What is the true source of authority in
religion? Answering that let us consider: (a)The Roman Catholic Claim. It will
not be denied by any professed believer in Christianity that our Lord Jesus
Christ is the head of the church and that the church is—hence all members of the
church, all Christians are—subject to him in all things. But Christ is in heaven
and we are upon the earth and we cannot therefore hear him speak in audi­ble
tones. In what way, then, does he direct our move­ments now? The church of Rome
claims that he dele­gated the right and power to govern his people to the
Apostle Peter and the other apostles, and that at the death of the original
twelve other men, succeeded them in office and authority and that even now the
pope and his prelates have divine authority to issue decrees for the church; to
make laws to govern the followers of Christ and that Christ will ratify these
laws in heav-' en. But there is no basis in the Scriptures for the assumption
that the apostles themselves ever claimed any such authority as this. They
represented them­selves as bond-servants of Christ and as vessels of clay in
which the precious treasure of the gospel had been placed. They believed that
they possessed the Holy Spirit and they spoke the will of Christ as the Spirit
enabled them. They taught that their word would become normative and that
Christians in all ages should “contend earnestly for the faith which was once
for all delivered unto” them—the apostles. There is therefore no intimation that
they expected to have any successors and there is not the slightest intimation
in history that they did have any successors—that any man followed them who
could manifest the “signs of an apostle” (1 Cor. 9:1). (b) The Battle Won by
Luther and the Basic Principle of Protestantism The assumption of complete
authority by the papal court robbed Christians of their liberty and the church
of its purity for more than a thousand years. Any sort of immoral measure or
corrupt scheme that these self-called infallible officials wished to adopt or to
promote was accepted and suffered by the people because they were under the
awful belief that these measures and schemes were ratified in heaven. A few
heroic souls like Wycliffe, Huss and Savonarola dared to protest against such
spiritual wickedness in high places but none of these ever thought of disputing
this blasphemous claim of authority by which such wick­edness was made possible.
It remained for Luther to attack the authority of the pope and to repudiate the
decisions of councils as final in matters of doctrine. But even he at first made
his fight against the corrup­tions that were in the church and was driven to see
that he would have to accept these corruptions or else rebel against and reject
the authority of those who authorized them. When Luther denied that the church
had any divine right or even moral right to sell indul­gences, and showed that
justification is by faith and not by works and that forgiveness is granted upon
repentance and not secured by penance he was only dis­cussing theological
questions as a monk with monks. But Luther’s ideas were gaining so much favor
with the people and therefore retarding the pope’s scheme to such an extent that
Leo X took cognizance of him and sent the most learned men in the church which
called him father to argue with Doctor Luther, to con­fute him, conquer him. All
that was imposing in names, in authority, in traditions, in associations, was
arrayed against him. The great Goliath of controversy of that day was Doctor
John Eck. He was superior to Luther in repu­tation, in dialectical skill and in
scholastic learning. Doctor Eck challenged Luther for a public debate at
Leipzig. All Germany was interested. The questions at issue stirred the nation
to its very depths. The disputants met in the great hall of the palace of the
Elector. Never before was seen in Germany such an array of doctors and
theologians and digni­taries. It rivalled in importance and dignity the Coun­cil
of Nice, when the great Constantine presided, to set­tle the Trinitarian
controversy. The combatants were as great as Athanasius and Arius,—as vehement,
as earnest, though not so fierce. Doctor Eck was the pride of the universities.
He was the champion of the schools, of sophistries and authorities, of
dead-letter litera­ture, of quibbles, of refinements and words. He was about to
overwhelm Luther with his citations, decrees of councils, opinions of eminent
ecclesiastics—the mighty authority of the church, but Luther’s genius and his
deep consciousness of truth came to his rescue. Under the mighty conviction of
the righteousness of his cause and under the inspiration of the hour Luther
caught a far vision of truth. He then swept away the very premises of his
opponent’s argument. He denied the supreme authority of popes and councils and
uni­versities. He appealed to the Scriptures as the only ultimate ground of
authority.

Thus was born the basal idea of the Reformation— the supreme authority of the
Scriptures,—to which Protestants have ever since professed to cling.

Doctor Eck and the church were not prepared to deny openly the authority of Paul
and Peter and the other inspired men, hence they were left gasping for breath by
Luther’s appeal to the Scriptures. But their cunning soon found a way to saye
their own authority. They said, “Yes, we accept the scriptures as authority too.
We even put them above Augustine and Thomas Acquinas and the councils. But who
is to interpret the scriptures? The Bible cannot be understood by the common
people. It must be interpreted by the church—that is by the priests. We will not
let the people have the Bible. They would become fanatics. We will tell them
what the Bible teaches. They must look to us.”

Then Luther rose more powerful, more eloquent, more majestic than before. The
second great princi­ple of the Reformation was born from his soul—the right of
private judgment—the right of every indivi­dual to have the light of life as it
shines upon his soul from the sacred pages. These two great principles freed the
people from the power of the pope and set on foot the greatest movement that the
world has known since the days of Paul. (c) The Failure to Apply the Principle
Although Luther found the principle upon which all religious questions must be
resolved he did not apply the principle to all questions. He confined his
efforts to those points largely upon which he had joined issue with the church
of Rome. He and his contemporaries, Knox and Calvin, never did entirely get away
from the idea of the authority of the clergy and their right to assemble in
convention and formulate doctrines to govern their followers. Only one reformer
of that period seemed to have the correct idea as to the work that needed to be
done, and that was Zwingli. The different views of Luther and Zwingli are set
forth in D’Augbigue’s History of the Reformation in these words: “Luther was
desirous of retaining in the church all that was not expressly contradicted by
the Scriptures, while Zwingli was intent on abohshing all that could not be
proved by Scripture. The German Reformer wished to remain united to the church
of all preceding ages (that is, the Roman Catholic Church), and sought only to
purify it from everything that was repugnant to tne word of God. The Reformer of
Zurich passed back over every intervening age till he reached the times of the
apostles; and subjecting the church to an entire transformation, labored to
restore it to its prim­itive Condition.” But Zwingli was overshadowed by Luther
and his principles did not control the Reforma­tion of the sixteenth century.

Then in the eighteenth century came the work of John Wesley. He labored to
reform the church of England, of which he lived and died a member. His efforts
to reform the church failed to accomplish their purpose but ihey resulted in
budding up a new denom­ination with practically the same form of government of
the Church of England but characterized by the zeal and warmth and spiritual
fervor that he had endeavored to mfuse into the old church. It never seemed to
enter Wesley’s mind to leave all human organizations and to go back over the
intervening ages to the time of the apostles and to reconstruct the church just
as it was in the beginning. So we see that all these reformers simply protested
against corruptions that existed in the older churches and when they could not
correct these errors their followers organized new denominations leaving out the
corruptions, hut which were nevertheless denomina­tions that recognized human
founders, human heads and nad their own lawmaking bodies.

II. The Coming of the Campbells (a) Schism Rife and Regnant When Thomas Campbell
and his son Alexander came into the picture the different denominations that had
been formed among the Protestants were warring with each other with as much
hatred as had ever existed between the Protestants and the Catholics. They
rec­ognized each other as composed of Christians and they were ready to make
common cause against the Catho­lics but they were not willing to fellowship each
other at the Lord’s table or to work together in peace. Even the Presbyterian
church, m which Thomas Campbell was a preacher, was divided into several
contending factions. The work assigned him in America was in Washington County,
Pennsylvania. As the country was then sparsely populated and as the people had
come from other countries, there were manj denominations represented among them
but there were few organized congregations of any sect. His duties as a minister
required Thomas Campbell to make a trip up in the Alleghany Valley to preach and
to give the Lord’s Supper to the fewT scattered members of his branch of the
Presbyterian church who lived m that vicinity. The people of the neighborhood
gathered together to hear the preaching which was a rare opportunity for them.
They bad no preaching and no opportunity to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. To us
who have been reared to see any band of humble Christians meet and conduct the
Lord’s service this seems strange, but we must not forget that the denominations
have never gotten away from the idea that clergy are different from the laity
and possess powefs and privileges that the ordinary Christian does not dare to
claim. With them no one can give the Lord’s Supper to God’s chil­dren or
minister to a penitent believer but an ordained clergyman. Therefore the people
of the Alleghany Valley being deprived of the “benefit of clergy” were also
deprived of the privileges of worshiping God as did the New Testament disciples
(Acts 20:7). The great heart of Thomas Campbell was moved with pity for these
people and he publicly expressed his regrets that he could invite members of
other branches of the Presbyterian church—all Presbyterians and only
Pres­byterians—to partake of the Lord’s Supper with him and his peculiar kind of
Presbyterians. For this offense he was reported to the Presbytery by a young
preacher by the name of Wilson who was an under­study of Mr. Campbell. The
Presbytery reprimanded Mr. Campbell for criticising the rules and usages of his
church. Mr. Campbell appealed to the Synod but that august body did not look
with any degree of favor upon a man who would criticize the rules made by the
authorities of his church or attempt to change the “usages” of that church.

Again we see the principle upon which Eck attempt­ed to meet Luther prevailing.
Questions must be decid­ed by the usages of the church and by the decisions of
councils.

(b) A Plea for the Principle as a Basis of Union. As a result of the divided
state in which Mr. Camp­bell found the religious people of his time and of his
community and because he found that the spirit of sectarian narrowness and
bigotry would not allow him to minister to a child of God if that individual did
not chance to be a member of his denomination, Mr. Camp­bell withdrew from the
Presbytery—not from the Pres­byterian church—and began independent work. He
became a preacher for the whole community and asked all professed Christians to
work with him though these did not at first sever their denominational
affiliations. They were banding themselves together in an undenom­inational,
and, at first an interdenominational capacity in order that they might all
together enjoy the worship of God. This was not brought about by any difference
over some particular doctrine. Certainly it was not about baptism as Mr.
Campbell himself had at this time never been baptized. He had been sprinkled in
infancy. It was not caused by a love for controversy or by the desire for a
debate. Thomas Campbell was never a controversalist. He desired to preach and
practice only those things about which there could be no con­troversy. In
explaining and defining his position to the Synod he said:

“Is it, therefore, because I plead the cause of the Scriptural and apostolic
worship of the church, in op­position to the various errors and schisms which
have so awfully corrupted and divided it, that the brethren of the Union should
feel it difficult to admit me as their fellow-laborer in that blessed work? I
sincerely rejoice with them in what they have done in that way; but still, is
not yet done; and surely they can have no just objections to go farther. Nor do
I presume to dictate to them or to others as to how they should pro­ceed for the
glorious purpose of promoting the unity and purity of the church; but only beg
leave, for my own part, to walk upon such sure and peaceable ground that I may
have nothing to do with human controversy, about the right or wrong side of any
opinion what­soever, by simply acquiescing in what is written, as quite
sufficient for every purpose of faith and duty; and thereby to influence as many
as possible to depart from human controversy, to betake themselves to the
Scriptures, and, in so doing, to the study and practice of faith, holiness and
love.” That association of neighbors in Washington, Penn­sylvania, as a band of
Christians agreed upon certain principles upon which they were to work. These
were set forth by Thomas Campbell in what was called then and what has since
become famous as the ‘‘Declaration and Address.” This address was an arraignment
of sectism and a plea for Christian union. It contended for a practice of only
those things that are authorized by the New Testament Scriptures and that were
prac­ticed by disciples in New Testament times. Its whole plea was summed up in
the now famous slogan, “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is
silent, we are silent.” Upon this principle those neighbors could work together
forgetting their denominational differences.

(b) The Principle Works. They afterward abandoned their denominations all
together and served the Lord as Christians only. Alexander Campbell joined his
father and took the lead in applying their rule to many of their denominational
ideas and found that they were not Scriptural. They made the Bible their sole
ground of authority and de­cided every question by a “thus saith the Lord.” They
proceeded upon the exact principle that Luther had contended for but failed to
follow out to a conclusion. They took up the plan proposed by Zwingli two
cen­turies before them and made it work. They not only respected the statements
of Scripture but they respect­ed its silence as well. Luther desired to retain
all that was not contradicted by the Scriptures—all that the Scriptures do not
say thou shalt not do—but Zwingli advocated abolishing all that could not be
proved by the Scriptures. And this was the plan of the Camp­bells and their
co-laborers. Even years after both the Campbells were gone from the earth the
disciples istrictly followed this rule and would not practice any­thing that
could not be proved by the Scriptures. J. Z. Tyler in a sermon preached at
Richmond, Virginia, in 1882, from which sermon we quoted in our last lec­ture,
said:

“We seek to avoid speculations on untaught ques­tions. We hold that they gender
strife. The silence of the Bible is to be respected as much as its revela­tions.
‘Infinite wisdom was required as much to deter­mine of what men should be
ignorant as what men should know. Indeed, since, in regard to all matters
connected with the unseen spiritual world, man is dependent upon Divine
revelation, the limits of that revelation must necessarily mark out also the
domain of human ignorance, as the shores of a continent become the boundaries of
a trackless and unfathomed ocean.'

Out of this view there have arisen among us such maxims as these: ‘Where the
B'ble speaks, we will speak; where the Bible is silent, we will be silent,’ and
‘Bible names for Bible things, and Bible thoughts in Bible terms.’" This
principle of recognizing the Bible as a standard of authority in religion began
to shake tne walls of sectdom and creed making bodies felt their power going
from them. Barton W. Stone and his fellow mem­bers of the Springfield Presbytery
had, even before Campbell was known to them, dissolved their Presby­tery as an
unscripiural body and insisted that the Bible aione is authority and that
individual churches remain independent and not form any combination. No ruling
bodies or governing assemblies should exist. None existed in New Testament
times. A mighty host of peonle rallied to the support of this principle and
simple gospel churches were estab­lished in thousands of places. Churches
composed of Christians who lived in each community. These churches sustained no
organic connection with each other, yet they were all alike for they were
fashioned after the same divine pattern and recognized the same Head, King and
Lord. Peace prevailed, good will reigned, and success crowned their efforts. The
plea w*as invincible and the ultimate overthrow of all sec­tarianism and the
union of all Christians seemed to be a goal not impossible.

III. Division Among Those Who Plead For Unity (a) First defections. It is
probably too much to expect perfection of anything with which human beings have
to do. The Lord’s order is perfect but weak mortal beings will not continue to
forget self and fol­low the Lord. It is sad to have to chronicle the fact that
those who plead for unity by a return to the New Testament order of work and
worship have divided into separate and antagonistic groups. The first defec­tion
could not properly be called a division as those few who broke off went
completely away. Three names tell the story of the beginning of the greatest
religious hoax ever perpetrated; But one of these men was not responsible for
the hoax. He was a victim though he supplied the literature for the scheme.
Solomon Spauld­ing, an educated man, for a long time a Presbyterian preacher but
who had quit the ministry and become skeptical, wrote a novel in which he wove a
fanciful story about the origin of the American Indians. He represented them as
being the ten lost tribes of Israel. Spaulding put this manuscript into the
hands of a printer at Pittsburg but it was lost. Sydney Rigdon, a preacher among
the disciples, but who was never looked upon as very dependable, worked in the
printing shop from which the Spaulding manuscript disappeared.

Joseph Smith, in New York, was a lazy lout who pro­fessed to be a diviner. He
told fortunes and had men dig for hidden treasures. His father, while digging a
well for Willard Chase, threw out a stone of peculiar shape and of almost
transparent color. The Chase children kept the stone among their playthings. But
young Joe Smith stole it from the children and began to use it as a peep-stone
in telling fortunes.and in pre­tending to tell where lost property might be
found. The court records of that country show where Joe was made to pay a fine
for charging a farmer $10.00 to tell him by the power of his peep-stone where to
find a cow that had strayed. The cow was not at the place designated, hence the
court action and the fine.

Now, about this time Joe had his vision about the buried plates and he, by the
instructions of the angels, dug them up and translated them by the peep-stone
and thus the book of Mormon appeared which was nothing more nor less than the
old Spaulding manu­script revamped by Sydney Rigdon. Rigdon became Smith’s
right-hand man and was the first preacher of the first Mormon church. Thus
Mormonism originated in a brain of a renegade Christian preacher, which accounts
for the truth that the Mormons teach on bap­tism and some other points.

Some years later, Dr. John Thomas, a physician, but a man who had given up his
profession for the study and the proclamation of the gospel, came to America
from England. He heard the plea for a return to the New Testament and for a
restoration of the ancient order. He became obedient to the faith and preached
the truth for several years. He founded and edited a paper and was highly
commended by Alexander Camp­bell for his labors. But he began speculating on
proph­ecy and theorizing about the Millennium and making these theories the very
acme of all Bible teaching. He also taught the idea of soul-sleeping and the
annihila­tion of the wicked. He led away disciples after him and became the
founder of the sect known as Christa delphians. These, however, unlike the
Mormons, held strictly to the idea of congregational independence and of no
organized ecclesiasticism. They have for this reason remained weak while the
Mormons, combining religion with militarism, have become a mighty empire.

(b) A surrender of the plea. Those who went away with Dr. Thomas and Sydney
Rigdon have so far departed that they are now never thought of in con­nection
with the restoration movement—only the few know that they were ever associated
in any way with us. It is a sadder story that we must tell of those who yet
claim to belong to the restoration movement but who have completely surrendered
the plea for Bible authority in all things. The United States Census Bu­reau now
lists two branches of the people who profess to exist for the express purpose of
preaching unity upon the Bible alone and as Christians only. These two groups
are in these last days usually distinguished by the name “Christian Church” for
the one and “Church of Christ” for the other which names alone clearly announce
that here are two sects and both claiming to be the church Christ founded. What
a shameful situation! Of course these are not two dif­ferent churches but
factions of the same church— therefore sects. Persons, enter into the church of
the Lord by conversion, by obeying the gospel or, to be specific, by hearing the
gospel, believing the gospel, by repenting of sins, by confessing Christ and by
being baptized unto the remission of sins. To require more of any one who
desires to enter the church would be to make a human requirement, a human law
and therefore to make such a church a human institution. When people come from
the so-called “Christian Church” to the so-called “Church of Christ” do they
have to obey the gospel—hear, believe, repent and be baptized? No, they have
already done that. Then of course they are already in the true church, which is
the church of Christ, and are not now coming into it.

They have been in a sect called “Christian Church” and should be now coming out
of it, not out of a sect into the church but out of the sect to be in nothing
but the church. They have been in error but have now learned the way of the Lord
more perfectly. We should not speak of them as having left one church to be
mem­bers of another.

While the names mentioned above are now used to distinguish the two sides—by
some at least—this has come about, in only recent years. Formerly, they used
other terms. One group called themselves “Progress­ives” and their opponents
“Antis.” The other group called themselves “Loyals” and their opponents
“Digressives.” These terms were neither beautiful nor brotherly but with all
their ugliness they did not mani­fest the sectarianism that the names we now use
exhibit. But if we did not have the two sides we would not need the
distinguishing designations. The fact that we have the two sides is the crying
shame. This situation forces us to accept one of two conclusions, namely, To
speak ivhere the Bible speaks, and to be silent where the Bible is silent will
not unite the chil­dren of God and restore the New Testament church as we have
claimed it would, or else somebody has failed to live by this motto and has
therefore departed, digressed from our plea. Since the plea was to have Bible
authority for all we do, to digress from the plea would be to do things for
which there is no Bible authority, therefore to digress from the Lord’s way.
Which conclusion shall we accept? To accept the first would be to reject the
Bible as a standard of authority and as a basis of union. We cannot agree to
such a dire conclusion as that. Then we are forced to say that somebody has left
the original ground and surrendered the plea. Who is it and in what respect have
they digressed ? This brings us to:

(c) Details in the departure. We unhesitatingly charge that our brethren who
call themselves Progress­ives have surrendered our plea, departed from our motto
and brought reproach upon the cause of our Master. They have introduced things
into the worship for which there is no Scriptural sanction and have formed
organizations to usurp the functions of the church.

Without attempting to give a chronological account of these departures we notice
the primary causes of the trouble.

Instrumental music in the worship. It is a fact that is known to all persons who
are only tolerably informed in either sacred or profane history that the New
Testament churches did not use instruments of music in the worship of God, and
that they were never used among professed Christians until the seventh cen­tury.
Of course, therefore, when our fathers set out to restore the New Testament
church they did not restore something that was never in it. The churches of the
nineteenth century did not use such instruments in their worship for about sixty
years. They all wor­shiped alike and all stood together for more than a half
century. The first instrument was an organ intro­duced into the Olive Street
church in St. Louis in 1869. It at once caused division. A committee was
appointed to settle, the matter. The committee was composed of Isaac Errett,
Robert Graham, Alexander Proctor and J. K. Rogers. This committee removed the
organ and restored peace. Since these brethren were walking by the rule of
“speak where the Bible speaks/’ and since they were all willing to accept
any­thing for which there is Bible authority, why did the organ cause division?
Why did not those who wanted the organ give the chapter and verse that
authorized it and settle the matter? That committee was com­posed of some of the
best Bible scholars and some of the ablest defenders of the faith then living.
Why did they remove the organ to placate the objectors? Why did they not show
the brethren the authority in God’s word for the instrument and let it remain in
the church? The fact that they did not do this is evi­dence sufficient that it
could not be done. Their deci­sion in the matter is an admission that there is
no Scriptural authority for the instrument and that it was not in the New
Testament church which we set out to restore.

Then to use the instrument is a clear surrender of our plea; a departure; a
digression. But the case at St. Louis did not remain settled. Those who wanted
instrumental music in the worship would not abide by the decision of the
committee or be governed by the Zwingli plan and the Thomas Camp­bell motto. At
other places the instruments were forced in, nearly always causing division,
those who would not worship with the innovation withdrawing and wor­shiping in a
separate congregation. In many places the question of the ownership of the
church property arose and the matter was taken into the civil courts. Hard
fought trials, bitter strife and alienations fol­lowed. And all this about
something for which there is absolutely no Bible authority and among people
whose basic principle was union upon the Bible and the Bible alone! But the
advocates of the instrument have resorted to every possible artifice and
exhausted the whole cata­logue of fallacies in an effort to justify their
course. They, in nearly all instances, will admit that there is no Bible
authority for their instruments but they instantly rally with the utterly
disingenuous shout, “But the Bible does not condemn the use of instru­ments ! It
does not say we shall not use them! They do not seem to see that this is a
complete surrender of and a departure from the Zwingli plan and the Camp­bell
motto. They have utterly repudiated the second clause of the old motto, “Where
the Bible is silent, we are silent.” They have gone far afield since the day
that J. Z. Tyler uttered the language already quoted in this lecture. There is
no way for these brethren to clear themselves of the charge of having digressed.

Organized Societies. After the restoration move­ment had been in existence for
nearly a half a century and after the simple gospel had been preached by
individuals and by independent churches until the plea for restoration of the
ancient order had been heard in all the English-speaking world, some men began
to insist that missionary societies should be formed for the purpose of
preaching the gospel to the world. Faith­ful men pointed out that the church
itself was founded and established for the sole purpose of evangelizing the
world, that it is the “light of the world,” “the salt of the earth,” “the pillar
and support of the truth,” and that it is to “hold forth the word of life in a
crooked and perverse generation.” But the advocates of the societies claimed
that such organizations would only be the churches cooperating to do the work
they were ordained to do. Again, faithful men insisted that while it is
Scriptural and proper to cooperate it is not Scriptural to form a corporation of
congregations for that would take away the independence of each church and
result in an ecclesiastical organization which would not only be human but that
would neces­sitate the making of human laws to govern it. This would not only be
something that the New Testament churches—which we are trying to restore—never
had but it would lead entirely away from the plea and pur­pose of the
restoration movement since it would form the churches into an organized
denomination with local headquarters and with human governing authorities. But
despite the protests the societies were formed and multiplied. As they grew in
size they assumed more and more control of the churches and became such
determining factors in the work of the Progressives that an individual preacher
or even an independent paper could have no more influence in checking their
plans and purposes than a single individual would have in opposing the action of
the convention of his political party. In order that these many societies might
not conflict with each other and thus hinder their efforts and limit their power
over the churches, they, in recent years, have formed a merger. They have all
gone into what is known as the United Society. This is a super­society with
subordinate branches, and the ecclesias ticism is complete.

Thus a much more powerful body than that which Barton W. Stone and his
associates dissolved in order to return to the New Testament order has been
formed by those who claim to be carrying on the plan which Stone and others
inaugurated.

Conventions. Those churches that use instrumental music and that work under the
societies have long been accustomed to hold conventions. When this prac­tice
first began the conservative brethren raised a pro­test and showed that no such
conventions were held in New Testament times but that they were held in the
second and third centuries and that they constituted one of the first steps in
the great apostasy: that they became law-making bodies. The Progressives
insisted that they were only mass meetings; that they had no legislative powers
at all; that all Christians were at liberty to attend and no individual had any
more power or authority than another and that the convention could not decide
questions, bestow favors or do anything else that had any resemblance to
official action. But no one can now make that claim for those conventions. They
did consider questions; appoint committees, hear reports and exercise all other
functions of a political or religious convention. Then the societies began to
control the machinery and direct all maneuvers of the conventions. These
lobbyists found it more difficult to control the mass meetings than they liked
and they therefore legislated through the convention that these conventions
should become delegate bodies. That is, that no one should have a voice or vote
except dele­gates and these delegates of course should be elected by the
churches. Of course this made the convention an official body, a representative
or law-making body. Churches that send delegates to the convention are of course
bound by the action of the convention. These conventions have voted on the terms
of membership in the church even, as though Christ and the apostles did not make
and ratify these once and forever. They have voted on the question of “open
membership,” that is whether people should be baptized in order to be admitted
into the church or whether they should be admitted without baptism.

(d) Conditions today among those ruho departed. Of course this turns those
brethren definitely into a sect with their law-making body deciding who shall
and who shall not be admitted into their denomination. They have not only
surrendered the purpose to destroy all sectism and the plea of the restoration
movement but they have actually gone back of the victory won by Luther and again
established the custom of decid­ing questions by the decree of councils and the
vote of conventions instead of by the word of God. Sup­pose the convention voted
that baptism is not essen­tial. Can that change the teaching of the word of God?
If the convention voted to eliminate baptism alto­gether, could it not vote to
change the form of baptism and substitute sprinkling? If not, why not?

Then if all of us participate in the convention and abide by its action it would
only be a short time until doctrines and practices ordered by the convention
would be at such a dissonance with the Scriptures that there would have to arise
other reformers to protest against such impudent assumption of power and lead
the world back to the New Testament. The fact that the convention has not yet
decided to eliminate or change baptism does not alter our point or mitigate the
circumstance. The vote has been taken and that is the assumption of power to
make such changes whenever the delegates may so elect. The whole thing is now on
the shifting sands of man’s vaccilating judgment and no doctrine of the sect
today may be its doctrine tomorrow. With these facts facing us it must be clear
that those of us who wish to be governed by the word of God in all things; who
wish to get back of all creeds, all­decrees of councils, and other human
authorities to the church of the New Testament must stay out of these
conventions and from under the domination of the United Society and from all
other machinations of men. This we are doing and as much as we deplore division
we are forced to work apart from all who will not abide within the doctrine of
Christ. There are several thousand independent churches of Christ that are still
prayerfully endeavoring to be just what the New Tes­tament churches were in
organization, in doctrine, in faith, and zeal and good works. May the Lord
multi­ply their number and increase their faith. And may he help them not to
allow the fact that they must stand aloof from all sects to turn that aloofness
into sectarianism.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: -A PLEA FOR UNITY
========================================================================

A Plea for Unity A PLEA FOR UNITY G. C. Brewer

Introduction. This lecture is the closing address of the series upon the subject
of the church in his­tory. In the preceding speeches, the fact has been
emphasized that the fundamental plea of the restora­tion movement was for unity.
In the literature of this movement, many sermons will be found dealing with the
subject of unity. This lecture, therefore, cannot be expected to add much to our
literature. 1 But if it Reminds us of the necessity of standing together in one
spirit and with one soul, striving for the faith of the gospel, it will
accomplish its purpose. The Sin of Division. In another address the sin of
sectarianism has been pointed out and emphasized. But it will not be amiss to
restate in this sermon the evils of division. We who try to measure our conduct
by the word of God, must not allow anything to obscure the fact that divisions,
factions, and strife are the most unscriptural conditions that can ever arise
among us. These things are classed with drunkenness, forni­cation and idolatry,
and those who are guilty of caus­ing division, of starting factions or of
engaging in strife cannot inherit the kingdom of God. A few quo­tations from the
inspired apostles will enforce this statement. “For ye are yet carnal; for
whereas there is among you jealousy and strife, are ye not carnal, and do ye not
walk after the manner of men?” (1 Corinthians 3:3). “Now the words of the flesh
are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
idol­atry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions,
parties, envyings, drunkenness, revel- lings, and such like; of which I forewarn
you, even as I did forwarn you that they who practice such things shall not
inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19­21). “But if ye have bitter jealousy
and faction in your heart, glory not and lie not against the truth. This wisdom
is not a wisdom that cometh down from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
For where jealousy and faction are, there is confusion and every vile deed”
(James 3:14-16). The Ideal of Unity. It will hardly be denied by any one that
unity among all the followers of our Lord Jesus Christ is to be desired. Peace
and good-will among all men is an ideal that our Lord Jesus Christ brought to
the earth and which has inspired the nations of earth to seek peace and to
assemble in peace conferences and to endeavor in many ways to bring about the
end of carnal strife and bloodshed. A fail­ure to realize this ideal does not in
any way diminish the glory of the ideal or discourage' those who have caught the
vision and who yet hope to see' it material­ized on earth. But if the nations of
earth cannot bring themselves to disarm and to live in mutual good will and
brotherly relationships, there is no reason why the people who profess to follow
Christ, who claim' to pos­sess his spirit and to be partakers of his nature,
should not live in peace with each other. If there is a lack of peace there must
be lack of spirituality, for the apostle Paul has just told us that carnality is
the cause of factions and divisions. Then if we have mor­tified the flesh and
have sunk ourselves into the Saviour, we will live together in peace and love.
The value of unity has been recognized by men for many thousands of years.
Aesop, the slave who lived and wrote before the Babe of Bethlehem came to bless
the world and before the angels sang of peace bn earth, good will to men, tells
us of a father who had seven sons. These sons grieved their father’s heart by
their disagreements and contentions one with the other. When the aged father
knew that the time of his departure was drawing near, and his heart yearning for
the welfare of his sons, he taught them a lesson by binding seven rods together
in a bundle and by giving this bundle to each of his boys and asking him to
break it. When each boy had exerted his utmost strength and failed to break the
bundle of rods the father took them, unbound them and broke each rod with the
greatest ease. He then told the boys that If they would stand together they
would be strong but if they were divided they would be weak and easily
destroyed. This simple lesson is known to everybody and yet it is often
forgotten in our practices, even by the best of us.

Greece was once a powerful nation, even a universal empire, because her people
were united under one invincible leader but at the death of this conqueror the
people were divided among the ambitious generals of the army and as a
consequence the whole nation was overthrown and each division was swallowed up
by the rival powers. Lord Byron wrote: “Tis Greece; but living Greece no more.”

Another story which illustrates both the beauty and the advantage of being
united is that of the lost babe in the vast wheatfields of the northwest. A
mother busily engaged with household duties allowed her little child to toddle
out into the yard to play unguarded. The child wandered out into the standing
grain and was lost. The mother missed the babe and searched and called but with
no success. She became alarmed and called the neighbors to help her in the
search. The neighbors, in sympathy with the parents and with deep solicitude for
the child, began the search but they too failed to find any trace of the little
one. The hour was getting late and the day was dying when one man suggested that
they might search in scattered parts of the fields and miss the child or even
should one find it the others might continue their search for hours before they
knew that the babe was found. He suggested, therefore, that they form a line and
join hands and march abreast across the fields, then when they reached the other
side they would swing around and march back toward the house. In this way they
would soon cover the wide acres and if the babe should be found the word would
pass from mouth to mouth and in an instant the shout of triumph would arise from
all as if from one man. Following this sugges­tion the line started its march,
singing as it went across the field. After a little while some one in the line
stumbled upon the babe sleeping sweetly among the yellow stalks of grain. The
babe was placed in the arms of the mother and joy filled the hearts of all and
rejoicing was heard for many miles around.

If we ourselves could not see the beauty of the ideal of unity and the advantage
of being one in faith and life, we would be compelled to plead for unity because
our Guide-book so emphatically and so repeatedly teaches us to be one. The night
our Lord was betrayed and while he was in the shadow of the cross he prayed
earnestly to the Father; first for himself that he might be glorified with the
Father with the glory that he had before the world was; second, he prayed for
his disciples and for those who might believe upon him through their word. This
prayer, therefore, includes you and me and all others who today profess to
believe in Christ. Our faith has come through the testimony of those disciples
who knelt with the Lord and prayed that night. Christ, looking down through the
vista of the years, embraced us in his prayer and bore us up before the Father
in an earnest entreaty that we might be one. Hear his plea: “Sanctify them in
the truth: thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, even so sent
I them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they
them­selves also may be sanctified in truth. Neither for these only do I pray,
but for them also that believe on me through their word; that they may all be
one: even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in
us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me. And the glory which thou
hast given me I have given unto them that they may be perfect into one; that the
world may know that thou didst send me, and lovest them, even as thou lov- est
me” (John 17:17-23).

If there were nothing else in all the Bible to lead us to want to be united,
this prayer would be sufficient. But the apostle Paul pleads with Christians to
be united in mind and judgment and not to allow divisions to exist among them.
“Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye
all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye
be per­fected together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Corinthians
1:10). As a prisoner in the dungeon of Rome, the care of all the churches
weighed upon his earnest soul and he wrote the brethren at Ephesus to endeavor
to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. “I, therefore, the
prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye
were called, with all lowliness and meek­ness, with longsufTering, forbearing
one another in love; giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the
bond of peace. There 1 John 5:8). Whenever it becomes proper and right for
Jesus, Jehovah and the Holy Spirit to hate, slander and abuse each other; to
wrangle, strive, contend and oppose each other, then it will be consistent for
Christians to engage in such things. It will be sinful for the child of God ever
to engage in these until this becomes proper. The chil­dren of God “must not
strive, but be gentle toward all men; apt to teach, patient, in meekness
instructing those who oppose themselves.’

If this unity which subsists between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
does not cause us to see and understand what is meant by “the unity of the
Spirit” we may get the thought from Paul’s illustra­tion. After entreating the
Ephesian brethren “to walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye are called” by
endeavoring to “keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace” he showed
them what that unity is by naming seven Ones. Seven is a prominent number in the
Scriptures. It is by some people supposed to be. a magic number; to possess a
charm. We do not attach any such idea to that number but there seems to be no
doubt that the number seven is symbolic. It rep­resents something that is
complete; a whole, a cycle, a perfect work, a finished mystery. Hence Paul shows
us the perfection of the unity that subsists in the divine arrangement by
enumerating the seven ones that compose the Spirit’s plan.

There is One body—(of Christ, which is the church and of which all Christians
are members. Ephesians 1:23; Colossians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 12:27). There is One
Spirit-—(The Holy Spirit, which dwells in that body to animate it and worketh
all things. 1 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 6:19; 1 Corinthians 12:11;
Ephesians 2:22). There is One Hope—(By which we are saved and which causes us to
sorrow not as those who have not this hope, for there is no other. Romans 8:24;
1 Thessalonians 4:13). There is One Lord—(Lord means ruler—there is but one
rightful ruler of our lives—He is Head of the body, the church, and his
authority alone must be recognized). There is One Faith—(That which comes by
hearing God’s word; which was once for all delivered to the saints and which
excludes, therefore, all opinions of men and all visions and dreams that have
come since. Romans 10:12-17; Jude 1:3). There is One Baptism—(That which was
authorized by the one Lord, to name upon us the one Godhead; that which is
taught by the one Spirit and brings us into the one Body. Matthew 28:18-20; Acts
2:38; 1 Corinthians 12:13). There is One God—(Who is the Creator of all. Who is
over all—all these other members of the seven­fold unity—is manifested through
all, and dwells in all).

What a tremendous appeal this is for Christians to be united. How can we imagine
that we can please God or ever expect to see Him in peace if we foment factions,
sanction divisions or perpetuate parties? How can we claim to be contending
earnestly for the one faith, to be subjects of the one Lord and members of the
one body when we are divided into hundreds of bodies, each recognizing some
central head other than the Lord and being ruled by laws other than the divine?
When we wear human names to distinguish us one from the other and When we
contend for creeds and opinions and theories? How can we be children of one
Father and not be similar in disposition? How can we all belong to one family
and not recognize a kinship? How can we all be partakers of the one Holy Spirit
and not compose one holy brotherhood? How can we claim to love the Lord while we
are defeating his cause and blaspheming his name for the sake of selfish ends
and party principles? How can we hope to be saved if we consent to belong to any
body other than the “one body”—the church?

It is sometimes argued that we now have unity among the followers of Christ. It
is said that all the different denominations are one in the most vital and
fundamental sense; that they have one Lord and one faith, etc.; that they
compose one spiritual body but are divided into branch organizations. This claim
is vitiated by the fact that the denominations are en­gaged in the work of
destroying each other; that there is no peace between them. On the contrary,
there is a clashing of their creeds and a rivalry in their efforts and too often
bitterness and jealousies in their hearts. If it could be said with any degree
of truth that these denominations are one in an invisible sense, and this is
what is claimed, this could not be the oneness that our Saviour prayed for. If
it were possible to have this visible division and strife in an invisible union,
the purpose of the prayer of our Savior would still be defeated. He prayed for a
oneness that the world might see, therefore a visible unity, and be made to
believe that the Father had sent him. We can never regard this prayer as
fulfilled until we have removed the reproach that is cast upon the name of our
religion by our parties and our divisions.

Hoiv to Attain the Ideal. The great problem of attaining the ideal of unity has
not yet been solved. Very few men today will even attempt to defend divi­sion
and denominationalism. The desire for unity is widespread and the advantage as
well as the Scriptur- ainess of unity is admitted upon every hand. But how can
we attain this ideal? We still believe that the true basis of unity was found by
the pioneers of the restor­ation movement. We believe that the word of God forms
a sufficient platform for all Christians. We believe that if we could forget
pride of party, love for denomination, zeal for inherited traditions and turn
back with earnest hearts to the church of the New Testament, we would all be
one. It cannot be that the New Testament is not plain and it cannot be that we
of this enlightened age, do not have the ability to do the things that men did
two thousand years ago. The only trouble is in our hearts. Are we willing to
sur­render completely to the will and way of our Lord and to become and be just
what the disciples of the New Testament were? Then are we willing to work and to
worship in the same simple manner that they used ? If we can find this
willingness in our hearts, there should be no trouble in getting together and in
staying together. But we again meet the objection that those of us who claim
that we have abandoned all denomination- alism and have been delivered from all
creeds and are now speaking where the Bible speaks and remaining silent where
the Bible is silent, are nevertheless divided into factions and contending
sects. This objec­tion is made not only with reference to the modern schism of
which we have spoken, which has torn our people into two parties known as
“Disciples of Christ” and “Churches of Christ,” but it applies to those who
belong to that band that composes the so-called churches of Christ. Even we, it
is said, fight and devour each other and split and divide over the most
insignificant things. It is sad to have to admit that there is all too much
truth in this objection, but we must again plead that our failure to apply the
prin­ciple cannot in any way affect the truth of the principle or overthrow it
as a challenge to the World. The divi­sions that exist in local congregations or
in any par­ticular sections of the country, whatever may be the ostensible
cause, are caused by carnality. This may be manifest in jealousies, envyings,
pride of opinion, love for hobby, determination to have one’s own way, or by a
thousand other weaknesses of the flesh. But after all they have their birth in
the flesh and are brought forth in the works of the flesh, which are condemned
in the severest terms that even Inspiration could use.

We must not overlook the fact that when the Apostle Paul condemned divisions and
pleaded for the unity of the Spirit, he was not writing to denominations, but he
was writing to local congregations. Denominational- ism was not then in
existence and no creed-making body of professed Christians had ever assembled.
The strife and the divisions that then existed started between individuals and
spread through the congrega­tions until many thereby were defiled. When we allow
such things to spring up among us today to destroy the sweetness of our
fellowship, to disrupt the congrega­tion and to damn the souls who engage in
them, or become influenced by them, we trample ruthlessly upon the teaching of
the apostles and upon the prayer of our Lord. We would as well disregard the
word of God upon baptism or upon the Lord’s Supper, or upon any other doctrinal
point as to disregard it upon the practical point of peace and good will. Of
course, those who are involved in a division always claim that some vital point
is in question. They strive to justify the condition that exists by citing some
doctrinal disloyalty, or some unfaithfulness to the word of God. Frequently,
however, it is only our opinion or our judgment that has been disregarded and
not the word of God. And even if some brother does not have a true understanding
of what the Lord teaches upon some point, that is no reason that his failure to
understand this truth should be made the cause of division. Even if he teaches
error, this error would have to be very heinous if it is as great a sin as the
sin of division. If the error that he teaches does not affect any condition of
salvation or any item of wor­ship; if it does not change the organization or the
function of the church of the Lord, then why should our objection to his error
be made so strong as to destroy fellowship, divide churches and disgrace
our­selves before the world.

If questions arise upon which the word of the Lord says nothing; questions of
mere preference or taste or opinion, how shall we prevent differences of this
kind from causing division? The Apostle Paul laid down the principle that will
answer this question forever. In our endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit
we are to do so in all lowliness, meekness and longsuffer- ing, forbearing one
another in love. If no one ever differed from us or ever crossed our path or got
on our nerves, we would have no opportunity of developing the beautiful graces
of longsuffering and forbearance. If we will suffer long and forbear in love
those that displease us, we will not only be like the Master, but we will have
peace and brotherly relationships every­where. If we would each esteem the other
better than himself and do nothing through strife and vainglory the troubles
that infest the land today would, like the Arabs, fold their tents and. silently
steal away. It is small wonder that the Apostles so repeatedly admon­ished us to
love each other and to treat each other with proper love and consideration. Hear
the apostle Paul again on. this point: “Be of the same mind one toward another.
Set not your mind on high things, but con­descend to things that are lowly. Be
not wise in your own conceits” (Romans 12:16). “So then let us fol­low after
things which make for peace, and things whereby we may edify one another”
(Romans 14:19). “Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of the
same mind one with another according to Christ Jesus: that with one accord ye
may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans
15:5-6). “Finally, brethren, fare­well. Be perfected; be comforted; be of the
same mind; live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you” (2
Corinthians 13:11). The apostle Peter is no less insistent and impressive in his
admonition: “Finally, be ye all likeminded, compassionate, loving as brethren,
tenderhearted, humble- minded: not rendering evil for evil, or reviling for
reviling; but contrariwise blessing; for hereunto were ye called, that ye should
inherit a blessing. For, 'He that would love life, and see good days, let him
refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile; and let him
turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace, and pursue it. For the eyes
of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears unto their supplication; but
the face of the Lord is upon them that do evil’ ” (1 Peter 3:8-12). Sometimes in
our zeal for the truth we lose our love for souls but this is the rankest sort
of sectarianism. We should we love a doctrine if it is"not for the purpose of
teach-' ing this as a truth to the sons of men in order that they too may be
blessed and saved? Then why should we make it the occasion of destroying souls
instead of the means of saving them? If our manner of con­tending for the truth
keeps people from believing the truth, or drives them away from the truth, then
we are ourselves enemies of the truth instead of its friends even though we
believe it sincerely. What good end is served if we destroy peace and harmony
among thou­sands of people in cur effort to correct a small error which probably
would reach only a few people in one locality? Our efforts sometimes are similar
to the solicitous servant who jealously guarded his master’s slumbers. The
master had given orders to the ser­vants not to allow him to be disturbed, but
he was awakened by a bright flash and a sudden roar in the room which almost
deafened him. In great excitement he inquired of the servant what this meant;
the servant standing with a smoking revolver in his hand said that there was a
mouse gnawing paper in the corner of the room and he feared that it would
disturb the master and therefore shot it. Brethren, let us quit shooting mice
and therefore stop exciting people to the extent of heart failure and death.

If we love souls of men to the extent that we are willing to preach to, pray
for, and labor to save a vile reprobate, (and we should do this), why will we
then destroy a man who is clean in life, earnest in heart and faithful to God in
everything except some minor point ? This point may have to do with the state of
the dead, or the question of what will become of the heathen or the millennium
or some other fanciful, far-fetched or untaught question. Or it may be on some
method of getting our money together on Lord’s day or about educating our
children and there may be some impor­tant truth involved but surely no truth can
be as vital as union with God and therefore union with all the children of God.
Nothing should separate us from each other unless it is something that separates
us from God. But some one is ready to suggest that ho one should teach any error
or set forth any theory or speculate on any point. That is all absolutely
correct, and a man who is well balanced and deeply philosoph­ical will not do
so, but if we were all infallible we would not need any rules to regulate our
conduct. We would not need the Bible. It is because some men can­not see things
in a sober, calm, considerate, judicial manner that we have hobbyists and
fanatics. They see only one point and exalt it out of all proportion to other
things and to its own value. They • therefore press it, emphasize it and almost
idolize it. Such men as this and such practices as this may try our patience but
how would we know that we have patience if it is never tried? How do we know
that we ourselves are not extremists or cranks on some other point? How can we
demonstrate that we are well balanced and even tempered if we are never tried ?
If we become as radical in opposing something as the other man is in advocating
it, then we are no less one-sided than he is. And if we are not careful and
prayerful and intro­spective in our thinking on this man’s error we will be
motivated as much by a dislike for the maii who holds the error as we are for
the love of the truth which he perverts. When this is discerned in Us by our own
children or jby any others instead of their being made to shun the error which
we oppose or love the truth Which we profess to defend (?) they are made either
to regard us with pity or with contempt. ' A Radical never converted anybody. A
ranting partisan never reflected honor upon any cause. A bitter, bickering,
contentious man is not welcomed in any company of sane souls.

Littleness, captiousness, Phariseeism dwarfs the soul, paralyzes the heart and
vitiates sympathy and love and all other noble impulses' at their very sources.
Such a spirit stabs spiritual religion dead at your feet, and turns you into a
rabid, ranting, rag-chewing, hair-split­ting hypocrite, as self-deceived,
self-righteous and self­assured of your own “loyalty” and “soundness” as the
ancient Pharisees who were your exact prototype.

Let us examine burselves to see if we be in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5), and
cease to judge and disfel- lowship each other. “Let us not therefore judge one
another any more: but judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumbling block in
his brother’s way, or an occasion of falling” (Romans 14:13).

If we have weak brethren, the New Testament tells us how to treat them. We are
to receive them but not for “doubtful disputations.” We who think we are the
“loyal disciples” of this age ought to come together in a national assembly and
spend forty days and forty nights in Bible reading and fasting and prayer.

We have an opportunity today that no generation has had since the days of the
apostles. The world is in confusion and thousands of souls are crying for the
light. The philosophies and sciences of men have failed to solve social,
economic and political problems. Reli­gious denominationalism has utterly failed
and a nom­inal Christianity has not met the demands of yearning souls. Our homes
are decadent; our schools have no fixed and definite purpose; our nations are
confused and confounded; revolutions are heard rumbling in the distance and war
clouds hang dark and ominous over our heads. In the midst of this sad situation,
Jesus Christ, the Light of the world, the Prince of peace, and the Savior of men
still stands with outstretched arms and in pleading tones calling all men to
come unto him and find rest. He is willing to take them to his great bleeding,
pulsating heart and heal them of all their dis­eases. But the world does not see
this loving Savior; they do not know his healing grace and cleansing power. They
do not realize that his gospel is a remedy for our ruined state and we who know
him and who have been saved by him should join our hearts and our hands, forget
our personal differences and our carnal ambitions and march forward inspired
with the g]ory and triumph that awaits a consecrated church. May the Lord grant
us the ability to catch the vision; to make tne surrender; to join our forces
and rush for­ward in a final triumphant advance.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 13: -IDEALS AND PURPOSES OF ABILENE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE
========================================================================

Ideals and Purposes of Abilene Christian College IDEALS AND PURPOSES OF ABILENE
CHRISTIAN COLLEGE Jas. F. Cox My Brethren and Friends:

It is but fair and right that the people who support Abilene Christian College
with their money and influ­ence should know the ideals and purposes of the
insti­tution. No college that does not have worthy, worth­while ideals, and
therefore good reasons for its exist­ence, deserves the support of Christian men
and women. The ideals and purposes for which Abilene Christian College stands
have been stated at various times by others who have helped to make the
insti­tution what it is. As time passes, however, and condi­tions change, arid
experiences light our way, these ideals and purposes become more keenly
apparent, and must be. more definitely stated. In the early part of the school
year 1905-6, A. B. Barrett, a graduate of David Lipscomb College came West and
interested a number of brethren and friends in the establishment of a school in
West Abilene, where the Bible would be taught as any other subject, and where
the teachers of otner subjects would present those subjects from the viewpoint
of a Christian. This institution of learning was known as Childers Classical
Institute. Its aim and purpose at that time was to give a cultural education in
a Christian environment, and to develop boys and girls into Christian men and
women worthy to be leading citizens of our country. In general there have been
few changes from these general ideals and purposes during the twenty seven years
of the existence of this school.

It is well just here to clearly understand what is meant by the term Christian
College. In the first place a college is an institution of higher learning which
gives instruction to graduates of standard high schools. The senior college
gives four years of such instruction, leading to the bachelor degree.

There are certain def­inite, standards required by various standardizing
agen­cies which colleges must measure up to in order to be recognized as first
class and to receive from the state those privileges and that recognition that
are neces­sary in order for the institution to jnaintain itself in competition
with other colleges. The standardizing agencies, however, do not altogether
determine the, cur­riculum, the purposes and the ideals of any college. There is
much liberality and choice allowed institu­tions of learning as to the nature
and extent of the cur­ricula and as to their general policies of management and
discipline. Some colleges stress agriculture, and are called agricultural
colleges; some stress the tech­nique of industry, and are called technological
colleges; and some stress Christian living, and may be rightly called Christian
colleges. So a Christian college is an institution of higher learning offering
instruction to high school graduates for two or four years, with spe­cial stress
upon the development of Christian char­acter.

Promoters and builders of Christian colleges have, therefore, as their ultimate
aim the development of Christian character. Friends of. Abilene Christian
Col­lege see that education above high school is necessary and that there is a
great demand for a type of higher education that is not furnished by the
colleges owned and operated by the state and by other organizations.

Christian men and women are asking for a place to send their sons and daughters
where they will have a Christian environment in which to get that higher
education that they cannot get at home. A Christian environment may be said to
be made up of at least two large factors: first, the Bible must be taught
diligently, seriously and conscientiously by those who do the teaching. The
Bible must have a very prominent place in the curriculum, all the students must
be required to study it and to learn it—not as mere literature, but as the very
truth of the living God. In the second place, those who teach all the other
branches of learning, as well as Bible, must be Christian men and women— those
who believe the Bible to be the truth, the very words of the living God given to
us through his holy apostles and prophets, and that it has been preserved and is
today unmixed with human error. These teach­ers must present their subject
matter from the view­point of a Christian. Such can not be done unless they are
really and genuinely Christian. Long ago it has been proven that one teaches as
much by what he is as by what he says. It is the purpose of Abilene Chris­tian
College to have such an environment as has been described. This institution
gives the Bible the most prominent place in its curriculum. Every teacher on the
faculty must be a Christian, a member of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ,
and must be free from habits that are not consistent with Christian living.

Abilene Christian College undertakes to have an envir­onment that promotes
Christian living and which tends to strengthen the faith of its students in the
Bible as the Word of God; and to train them in habits of right living. By way of
repetition, therefore, it may be said again that Abilene Christian College is an
edu­cational institution of higher learning, giving four years of college work
leading to the standard bachelor degree. It is not an adjunct of the church; it
is not run to do the work of the church; nor to supplement the work of the
church. It is built and maintained for the benefit of people who are seeking a
safe environ­ment in which young people who want to secure a higher education
than is offered in their home com­munities and a type of education that they
cannot secure in any of the schools maintained by the state. Abilene Christian
College is not a preacher’s factory. Its purpose is not to manufacture
preachers; however, if it maintains the environment and carries out the ideals
for which it stands, the atmosphere will be entirely conducive to the growth and
development of young men into effective gospel preachers.

Abilene Christian College encourages young men to be preach­ers of the Word; in
fact, it encourages every student to love and study the Bible and to be zealous,
.faithful teachers of its truths, because it believes that in no other way can
they be as happy and as useful as when they a,re sincere, faithful, earnest
teachers of God’s Holy Word. It is not the purpose of Abilene Christian College
to usurp or to take over the work of the home; it is rather an extension of the
work of a Christian home. It undertakes to offer a Christian home envir­onment
to those young people who are seeking a higher education; it undertakes to do
this, as has been said, by holding up God’s Word continuously before these young
people as the important thing in life. It reverences, stands for, and teaches
the same Bible that their mothers loved and taught to them while they were at
home. It urges these young people to attend reli­gious services and to take an
active part in them. It makes this possible by offering various meetings for
worship and study. It also undertakes to provide Christian work that would give
spiritual work to the students. It may be said, therefore, finally on this point
that Abilene Christian College is striving to maintain a real Christian home
environment for its students.

Any institution of higher learning in Texas today must measure up to certain
academic standards that are required by the state if it would receive from the
state certain benefits. One of the greatest benefits to be received from the
state of Texas, for this or any other college, is the privilege of certification
of its stu­dents by the state to teach in the public schools. For­tunately it is
possible for us to meet these requirements and at the same time maintain our
high ideals and pur­poses. One of the greatest services now being ren­dered by
Abilene Christian College rs that of turning out young men and young women who
are genuinely Christian, to be teachers in our public schools. These young
people generally have the highest ideals of Christian living and are real lovers
of humanity. They are well-qualified to teach the secular subjects that they are
required to teach in the public schools. Hundreds have gone out of Abilene
Christian College who are today leavening influences in various communities in
Texas and other states. Everywhere they are holding up the Bible as God’s Holy
Word and Christianity as the only hope of a decaying civilization. We find these
teachers not only promoting Christian living in the public school during the
week, but on Sundays we find them in the local congregations as leaders and
helpers in building up the cause of pure New Testament Chris­tianity.

It is not the purpose of Abilene Christian College to compete with state schools
and other col­leges and universities in buildings, equipment, learned faculties,
and in other outward manifestations. It is the purpose of Abilene Christian
College to offer some­thing, however, that these state institutions do not and
cannot offer. It is its purpose to stress spiritual devel­opment, to teach the
Bible, and to maintain a real Christian atmosphere. Of course it is necessary
for this institution to have good material equipment in the way of buildings,
supplies, laboratory equipment, library, etc. It is also necessary that we have
a faculty that measures up to a high standard in scholarship and training; but
our first consideration in getting the faculty is Christian character and
training, and then the mental or academic training is thought of. In its
relationship then to the state, Abilene Christian Col­lege undertakes to meet
the material standards in buildings, equipment, and faculty; but it does not
undertake to have the most expensive, the largest, nor the most ornamental
buildings. It does not undertake to have the most learned faculty, but it does
undertake to excel state school in Christian environment and in the study of the
Bible as God’s Holy Word. In its effort to meet the standards of the state in
order to have the certificating privilege it may some­times do things that seem
to be leading in the wrong direction. It is indeed difficult to maintain our
edu­cational standing and at the same time maintain our high standard of
spirituality which to us is first. But we are learning more and more in this
regard, and it is our firm belief that our high standard of Christian character
and citizenship as an ultimate goal for our students may be maintained, and at
the same time we may be able to meet every requirement of the state for higher
institutions of learning. By way of repetition and for the sake of emphasis I
wish to say again that Abilene Christian College is not maintained for the
purpose of making preachers, or missionaries, or teach­ers, or farmers, or
business men and women; but its purpose is to develop honorable, upright, happy,
Chris­tian men and women out of the young people that are sent to us—men and
women who will build Christian homes and take their places in society as leaders
in their communities, and in all things that make for civic righteousness and
the upbuilding of the cause of Christ in the world. Since teaching is the great
work of the church it is, of course, our ambition that every one of these be
teachers of God’s Holy Word; possibly not public teachers or teachers of
classes; but never­theless teachers. It may lead many of them to be preachers,
some to be missionaries at home and abroad; some to be elders, some to be
deacons—but we hope to lead all of them to be kings and queens in happy
Chris­tian homes.

Since those of us here who are directing this great work are stressing such high
and worthy ideals we do not hesitate to ask other Christian men and women
everywhere to be interested in it, and help us promote it by means of their
money and influence. We do not claim perfection for Abilene Christian College.
We make many mistakes in its administration and many things are done here that
we do not uphold, but in all this we want to assure you that we are striving
toward these high ideals. But so long as institutions are governed and directed
by men, even though they be thoroughly Christian, many mistakes will be made and
many failures will bp evident. We are encour­aged, however, in the great work
that is done here when we consider the products that have gone out from Abilene
Christian College and see the great good that they are doing in the world. We
are encouraged when we compare the work of this institution with that of other
institutions pf higher learning that are maintained by the state and by other
religious bodies. Since there are no other institutions of higher learn­ing that
are stressing the ideals and purposes that have been set forth in this address,
we believe that Abilene Christian College has a just right to exist and to ask
those who believe in this sort of higher education to support it with their
means and their influence, and to continue to make this the greatest college in
the world.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 14: -HOW ABILENE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE REALIZES ITS IDEALS
========================================================================

How Abilene Christian College Realizes Its Ideals HOW ABILENE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE
REALIZES ITS IDEALS

President Cox has very clearly set forth the ideals of Abilene Christian
College. I am sure that every one here today will agree that these ideals are
such as to challenge the best that is in those who are connected in any way with
the institution. An ideal may be one of two types. It may be that which has been
set up in fancy because it appears attractive or can be made to look attractive,
but one that is impossible of attainment, with the result that little or no
effort is made to reach unto it. On the other hand, an ideal may be that which
determines the life of the institution, that which makes it different from other
institutions, that which motivates conduct among its members with the result
that that individual who comes under its influence is different because of
hav­ing come in contact with it.

It is my purpose this afternoon to lead you to see that the ideals which have
been brought to your atten­tion are of the second type, that they are “part and
parcel” of the institution, they they permeate every activity in the life of the
institution. May I say just here that it is not from the viewpoint of a faculty
member alone that I approach this prob­lem. I look at it through the eyes of an
ex-student who spent four years under its influence, and through the eyes of an
ex-student of two other great educa­tional institutions. I tell you this that
you may know I am not approaching the problem as a faculty mem­ber who does not
understand the students’ reactions to the ideals that may have been established
without their knowledge or assistance. In older for an institution of any kind
to realize its purposes, the members who compose the institution engage in
certain activities that make it possible to reach the goal set for it. Suppose
that a group of merchants organize a Chamber of Commerce for the purpose of
advertising their city and bettering busi­ness conditions in the city. If they
sat down after they organized and did nothing more, it goes without saying that
the organization would be of no value and the purpose would not be attained But
they engage in certain activities that are planned and executed with a great
deal of care, which activities are calcu­lated to lead step by step to the goal
that has been set before them. And thus it is with Abilene Christian Collage.
Cer­tain purposes, aims, goals, ideals have been formu­lated. have evolved
through the years, and those who are members of the institution find it
necessary to take part in various activities m order to move step by step toward
the ideals that have been formulated.

We hope, therefore, in the next few minutes to take you behind the scenes, to
let you see Abilene Christian College from the inside, ac work. In this way, you
can see how we are striving to realize the ideals that Brother Cox has presented
to you. The activities of an institution like this are of two types, curricular
and extra-curricular. That is, a stu­dent’s time is spent in regular class room
work and preparation for the same, or In some activity aside from instruction,
such as the band, glee club, debating, athletics, and so on. A study of these
will reveal what we attempt to do. The most important activity in which students
engage is the work of the classroom where they have an opportunity to become
acquainted with the accom­plishments of man in the many fields of endeavor,
under the guidance of competent instructors. More than any other one thing, the
classroom instruction and that which grows out of the same determines the type
of institution it is and whether or not its purposes are being achieved. This is
true for two obvious, but sometimes forgotten, reasons. In the first place, the
members of the faculty of an institution exert a tre­mendous influence on
students and it is in the class­room that they come in closest contact with
their stu­dents. If a college has for one of its purposes the development of
Christian character, and the members of the faculty are not Christian both in
and out of the classroom, then the purpose cannot be realized. Or if it has for
one of its purposes the development of wor­thy home-makers, and the teachers
lead their students to study materials that tend to destroy instead of build,
then the purpose cannot be realized. In the second place, you know as well as I
that the art of writing has been developed to such an extent, and materials of
instruction have been so well organized, that should we so desire, and had we
the facilities, hundreds of courses might be offered in college, and dozens
might be offered in any one field. This means that choice of courses must be
made, and choice of materials to go into those courses must be made. The faculty
of the institution determines what courses out of the thou­sands that might be
offered are to be included in the program, and each faculty member in turn
determines what materials are to be presented to his students in his courses. If
a student takes a course under one teacher throughout the. year, he will sit at
the feet of that teacher a total of 108 hours and be engaged in work directed by
that teacher for another 216 hours. One teacher, therefore, directs the thinking
of one stu­dent, as a direct result of classroom work, a total of 824 hours
during a term of nine months.

You can see why I say that the activities that grow out of classroom instruction
are the most important. The average student spends 2 2/3 hours per day in the
classroom, 5 1/3 hours preparing for this classroom work, and the rest of the
time largely as he has been influenced in the classroom.

Since the teacher plays such an important part in the life of the student, it is
incumbent upon the leaders of an institution to provide teachers who have the
abil­ity to select materials of instruction that will be best for the student,
who possess that Christian character that might well be emulated by the
students, and who can conduct their classes in such way as to inspire the
students to effort in worthy fields of endeavor.

I realize that my position, as a member of the fac­ulty which I am picturing to
you as being the most important factor determining whether the ideals of the
institution are to be attained, might lead me to some conclusions based upon
bias rather than fact. I give you facts, and facts only, therefore, at this
time, and let you draw your own conclusions.

If faculty members are to be able to determine the courses that should be
offered in an intelligent man­ner, and if each member is to be able to select
mate­rials that will be best for the students, they must have come in contact
with the offerings of other institu­tions and must be thoroughly prepared in
their own fields. If they are to conduct their classes in such a way as to
inspire students to worthy effort, they must have had special training for their
work; and if they are to be examples in Christian living, they must be
Christians in every walk of life. Do the teachers in Abilene Christian College
measure up to these crite­ria? You may be the judge. On the college faculty, we
have 32 men and women. From the standpoint of training, they are catalogued as
follows:

Members of the faculty have been to a total of 86 of the outstanding
universities of the United States. Three of these members have their Ph. D.
degrees, the highest academic degree offered in any university in the United
States; one is a Doctor of Medicine; 17 have the M. A. degree, and at least four
of these have met most of the requirements for the Ph. D. degree; and ten have
the A. B. degree or its equivalent; one will get his degree this summer. All of
the fine arts teachers have had special training under teachers of national
reputation. As to academic training of fac­ulty, we have reached the place where
we not only meet the minimum requirements of such a college as this, but have
surpassed those standards. As to experience, our teachers have taught from one
to thirty-three years. As to ability to conduct the classroom work in such a way
as to inspire students, it is very difficult to meas­ure this directly.
Sufficient is it to state that our graduates who have gone to other institutions
have made records of which we are justly proud, and that reports come to us
every day about the splendid rec­ords that our ex-students in various walks of
life are making. I realize that when 32 teachers are assembled in one faculty,
some of those teachers are not going to be outstanding in ability to conduct
classroom work. You, no doubt, hear some criticism of some of our teachers, and
some of may be just. That is to be expected. But where a teachei is criticized
for one weakness, if you will but investigate, I believe you will find that this
weaimess is more than compensated for by some strong characteristic. As to
Christian living, may I say that every member of the faculty is a member of the
New Testament church and, I believe, is living what he teaches in the classroom.

You may wonder why I speak at such length about the faculty. A study was made
some years ago by an outstanding educator in the field of character edu­cation,
from which the conclusion was drawn that the teacher’s example is the most
potent influence in the moral life of the pupil. If this be true, and we believe
that it is, you can see why it is so important that the teachers in a college,
be Christian men and women, and how it would be impossible for the ideals to be
realized if even one should, either by teaching or exam­ple, oppose them in any
way. The student-tea cher relationship in a cohege is a most vital factor in the
life of the institution.

Since the activities that grow out of the classroom are the most important in
which the student engages, you should knowT something about the offering with
which he comes in contact. All freshmen in Abilene Christian College are
required to study Bible and Eng­lish, and to take part in physical training of
some kind. We believe that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness.” We believe, therefore, that we are justified in requiring all
students in Abilene Christian College to study the Bible. Since a knowledge of
the mother tongue and the literature in the same is essential to successful
living, we require every freshman to study English. In addition, students have
an opportunity to pursue courses in the following fields: Bible, and related
fields, such as Greek and religious education; education, for prospective
teachers, economics and business adminis­tration, for prospective business men
and women; Eng­lish and public speaking; foreign languages; physical education;
home economics; library science; mathe­matics ; chemistry, physics, and biology;
history, geog­raphy and sociology; and piano, voice, violin, speech and art in
the Fine Arts Department. By pursuing courses in these fields under the
direc­tion of the faculty, graduates of the college may enter any institution in
the United States and receive credit for work done here without loss of any. If
at any time a student loses credit it is not because we do not offer the
necessary courses but because the student has not elected to pursue the courses
that are required in the graduate division in his field. What I am saying is
that Abilene Christian College is recognized as do­ing efficient work by the
best accrediting agencies in the United States.

While it is true that we do not offer the specialized type of training that some
of our friends believe we should offer, we believe that we offer under competent
instruction the courses that function in realizing the ideals that President Cox
has set before you.

I mentioned a few moments ago that each student spends, or is supposed to spend,
on an average, 5 1/3 hours per day in preparing the assignments that are made in
the classroom. That which is most impor­tant in this respect is that there must
be readily access­ible to him reference materials in the library, prop­erly
arranged and supervised. We have in our library about 11,000 volumes, covering
all of the important fields of knowledge, and receive 83 periodicals each month.
Here our studens may spend part of each day in study or in recreational reading.

While the activities in which our students engage in the classroom and as an
outgrowth of the classroom are most important, and without them the college
could not exist, if we stopped there something vital in college life would be
omitted. I refer to the various extra­curricular activities of the institution
where the stu­dents have an opportunity to receive that all-around development
which we believe to be necessary to whole­some. living. In the Bible classes the
students study the word of the Lord that they may increase in understanding,
that they may become familiar with the precepts of sal­vation and of the
Christian life. But they learn from this study that they must use their
knowledge in doing more for the Master. They learn, too that to be of greatest
usefulness, they must take an active part in work of the church. This requires
practical training. This they get by taking part in such activities as prayer
meeting on Wednesday night, and young men’s meet­ing on Monday night, at which
time 24 young men take an active part in the service. Here they learn how to
take the lead in the work of the church—that which our churches over the country
so badly need. In addition to this, we have the mission study class meeting on
Wednesday night to study needs in this and other lands and how best to meet
these needs. As a direct result of this effort, many of our students have taken
an active part in missionary work here in Abi­lene. Through the efforts of these
students, assisted by faculty members, since the work began, thirty prison­ers
at the county jail have been baptized, an active con­gregation of Mexicans has
been established, and a small group of negroes has begun to meet regularly. The
evangelistic forum, composed of preacher students of the college, meets once
each week where an inspira­tional talk is made by a faculty member or visiting
preacher. The critic class, composed of young preach­ers, meets once each week
for the purpose of making a critical study of a sermon presented by a member or
an outline presented by a visiting preacher. The spiritual side is that in which
we are most in­terested, but we realize that the wholesome personality includes
a development in other fields. We realize, too, that individuals differ so
greatly ill interests and abili­ties that activities other than religious must
be made available. There are some who are interested in devel­oping their
abilities in public speaking. For these, we have intercollege debating, oratory,
and extempo­rary speaking, in addition to the work in these fields in the
classrom. Just two weeks ago, Abilene Chris­tian College was host to 16 colleges
and universities of Texas and Oklahoma for the second annual speech tour­nament
in which we had four men and four women entered, two of whom won first in
oratory and extem­porary speaking. Abilene Christian College has won national
reputation in the forensic fields. In addition to these activities, we have a
dramatic club in which students have an opportunity to study and interpret on
the stage some of the outstanding plays.

Other students are interested in applying in a prac­tical way the things they
learn in tne English course in writing. This opportunity is given them in the
Optimist, the college newspaper, the materials for which are written by the
students of the college, and in the Prickley Pear, the college yearbook, the
copy of which is prepared entirely by the students. Practical business training
is secured by those who handle the business end of these publications. These
activities not only provide excellent opportunities for those who actively
prepare them, but they contribute to the engen­dering of college spirit and
serve as a medium for the expression of student opinion.

We have each year a large number of students who are interested in developing
musical talent. For these, we not only provide private and group instruction
under competent teachers in voice, piano, violin, and wind instruments, but we
have the various musical organizations, such as the college band, orchestra,
glee and choral clubs, and the A Capella chorus. The last named, the A Capella
chorus, is composed of seventy young men and women who make a study of the best
church hymns and learn how to sing them as they should be sung. You can readily
see the value of this in the work of the church.

We believe that to be fully equipped for a life of service -to one’s fellowmen
in the name of the Master, an individual should enjoy the best health possible.
We not only require ah students to take physical training of some kind during
their first two years, but we make available to them an opportunity to
participate in inter­collegiate golf, tennis, baskeball, football, and track.
One of the greatest services we render is sending out young men of high ideals
to direct boys and girls in high school in these activities. A Christian man or
woman, working with adolescent boys and girls on the playing field, has not only
a great responsibility but an excellent opportunity to influence their lives for
the best. We believe that coaches who go out from Abi­lene Christian College, as
a general rule, feel their responsibility in this particular.

Students take part not only in these activities enu­merated, but they also have
an opportunity to develop the social side of life by taking part in social
activi­ties. We do not believe that we should prohibit stu­dents taking part in
social life, neither do we believe that social activities should take such a
prominent place as to cause students to neglect other activities. Clubs and
organizations on the campus are permitted to have one social function each term,
and from time to time, entertainments of various kinds are sponsored by the
college administration for all students. Young men are permitted to accompany
the young ladies to public assemblies in the auditorium and may visit with them
in the dormitory during “social” hour. In this way, we feel that students are
forming friendships that in many cases, at least, will mean the building of
Christian homes. It may be of interest to you to know that of the hundreds of
marriages that have resulted from friendships formed as students in Abilene
Christian College, so far as we know, not one has resulted in such failure as to
be dissolved by separation or divorce. This is no small matter. From this
portrayal of the activities of Abilene Christian College, you can see that we do
not believe in neglecting any phase of one’s personality. In the classroom, the
student comes in contact with those materials that better lit him for meeting
the problems of life; m the religious activities, the musical organiza- iotns,
the forensic clubs, and the writing organizations he receives that practical
training that better prepares him to meet the responsibilities of the future;
and in the social activities he receives that development and contact that every
young man and woman should have. No one student can take part in all activities,
but any one student can take part in those in which he is most interested.

It is impossible for me to picture in words the life of Abilene Christian
College. To appreciate it, you must be a part of it for a while, and even then
you do not fully appreciate it until you have gotten away from it and out into
life. While our students appre­ciate their opportunities and take advantage of
them, our ex-students are the ones who fully appreciate the value of Christian
education and know that the ideals of the institution are being approached in
the lives of those who come under its influence.

We invite you to visit with us as much as you can that you may see the
institution at work, and in this way, come to know that the ideals presented by
Brother Cox are not in fancy, but possible of realization in the lives of the
boys and girls who become students in Abilene Christian College.


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/abilene1934-lectures/
========================================================================