[Sidenote: Example from Tertullian]

As an example of the ritualistic character of Christian worship at the beginning of the third century, I will cite a passage from Tertullian. In the third chapter of his work De Corona, this celebrated Latin father undertakes to defend customs and practises that he confesses were received "on the ground of tradition alone." He says: "I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Whereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the gospel.[A] Then when we are taken up (as new-born children) we taste, first of all, a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we abstain from the daily bath for a whole week. We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the president, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be done at mealtimes and enjoined to be taken by all alike. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honors. We count shouting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign of the cross."

In words immediately following, at the beginning of Chapter 4, Tertullian says: "If for these and other such rules you insist upon having positive Scriptural injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer."

According to this confession, all the ceremonial observances here set forth are without Scriptural authority. When we read in the New Testament concerning the simple act of baptizing believers, and compare it with the customs and practises that had grown up in the Ante-Nicene church, we do not wonder that evangelical faith was soon afterwards almost entirely lost in ritualistic forms; that, like the Pharisees of old, men made the faith of God of none effect by their traditions.

[Sidenote: False doctrines and heresies]

Another evidence of the decline of evangelical faith is found in the presence of many false doctrines among the leaders of so-called orthodox Christianity in that period of which I now write. Paul not only taught that at a later time some should "depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and devils" (1 Tim. 4:1), but he referred to some who had already "erred concerning the faith" (1 Tim. 6:21), and named two persons, 'who, concerning the truth, had erred, saying that the resurrection was past already, and overthrew the faith of some' (2 Tim. 2:18). After the death of the apostles, error made deeper inroads, and its baneful influence cast a shadow over the church, which rapidly deepened into the darkness of spiritual night.

[Sidenote: Baptismal regeneration]

One of the earliest corruptions of apostolic truth concerned the design and purpose of baptism. It was not long until unscriptural significance was attached to the literal rite itself, so that what was originally a mere sign, was substituted for the thing signified, and thus baptism took the place of spiritual regeneration. In several places in the writings of Justin Martyr, who lived about the middle of the second century, his language seems to attach undue importance to the literal rite; but other passages from the same author indicate that he had not as yet entirely lost sight of the apostolic standard. In his Dialog with Trypho, chapter 14, he says: "We have believed and testify that that very baptism which he [Isaiah] announced is alone able to purify those who have repented ... and what is the use of that baptism which cleanses the flesh and body alone? Baptize the soul from wrath and covetousness, from envy and from hatred, and lo, the body is pure."

In his First Apology, chapter 61, the same writer draws a clear Biblical distinction between spiritual regeneration secured through repentance and faith, and ritual regeneration in baptism as a mere outward sign of the inward work. He says: "I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ ... as many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is truth, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the Universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water."

Other writers of the period under consideration, however, praise the saving efficacy of baptism in the most exalted terms. According to their minds, it is the actual means of the redemption of sins, not a mere literal rite expressing ceremonially the work of God's Spirit within the heart; it is an illumination; it extinguishes the fire of sin; it removes the unclean spirits from men and seals them for heaven. Tertullian wrote extensively on this subject. In his work On Baptism, chapters 3 to 8, he maintains the doctrine of baptismal regeneration "by which we are washed from the sins of our former blindness and set free for eternal life." He declares that by this act men are prepared to receive the Holy Ghost; that in the literal act, "the spirit is corporeally washed in the waters, and the flesh is, in the same, spiritually cleansed." Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (third century), in his treatise concerning the Baptism of Heretics, teaches the same doctrine in no uncertain terms.

[Sidenote: Other erroneous doctrines and practises]

The limits of this work preclude the historic treatment of the rise and development of the host of false doctrines and practises that finally bound the people in the thralldom of superstition and plunged the world into the darkness of spiritual night. One who is free from such influences can scarcely read without feelings of disgust the elaborate treatises of these church fathers wherein they extol the virtues of virginity as forming a new order of life, as an evidence of divinity, as making virgins while in this world "equal to the angels of God," and as a certain surety of special rewards in heaven. From this false standard proceeded at length the celibacy of the clergy and monkery with all their attendant evils. And the time would fail me to tell of the introduction of images and image-worship in the Western Church and of that superstitious regard for miserable relics of every description and kind. True evangelical faith was at length lost to view, buried beneath the rubbish of men's traditions. The treatment of such matters, however, belongs to the church historian, and as the general facts are well-known, it is unnecessary here to make more than a brief reference to them so as to prepare the mind for that treatment of the reformation which is a special object of the present work.

[Footnote A: Tertullian is the earliest writer that clearly and unmistakably teaches trine immersion, or records its practise. But here he honestly confesses that it is a "somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the gospel."]



CHAPTER VI

RISE OF ECCLESIASTICISM

[Sidenote: Two phases of apostacy]

In order to understand the place which the work of reformation has in the plan and purpose of God respecting his church, we must carefully observe the twofold character of the apostasy. Both these phases are clearly outlined in that remarkable prediction of Paul to which reference has already been made, recorded in the second chapter of Second Thessalonians. The first phase, described as "a falling away," was that decline from true Christianity which we have considered in the preceding chapter as the Corruption of Evangelical Faith. The second phase was the rise and development of a foreign element which was from its beginning "the mystery of iniquity" and which in certain respects usurped the true place of Jehovah himself in spiritual worship in the temple of God. This phase now demands our special attention.

Since the sixteenth century reformation a large part of the Christian world has renounced the right of the pope to sit as the supreme earthly head of the church, but we shall show later that these same modern Christians who have sought the restoration of the evangelical faith have not discarded the essential elements of the papal hierarchical system, but have perpetuated them in their own ecclesiastical constitutions, and that this relic of medievalism is the chief barrier to a reunited Christendom and the restoration of pure apostolic Christianity. It is highly essential, therefore, that this phase of the apostasy be carefully considered. It is not enough to reject the pope and his college of cardinals. If that tree, as judged by its fruits, is an "evil" tree, we should seek to know where, when, and by whom the evil seed from which it grew was first planted, and then reject it from the roots up. Then, and not until then, can the work of reformation be made complete. We have, therefore, to trace the rise and development of what may be forcibly expressed by the apparently pleonastic phrase human ecclesiasticism.

[Sidenote: Divine authority vs. positional authority]

We have already seen that in the church, as originally constituted, organization, authority, and government proceeded from the divine and not from the human. The agents whom Christ used in performing his work and in overseeing his church were called and endowed by the Holy Spirit, and this divine endowment was the real basis of their authority and responsibility. Paul's authority and responsibility as an apostle, for example, was not positional authority, or authority proceeding from a certain position to which he had been appointed or elected. His authority was divine, and out of that divine authority grew his positional responsibility as the "apostle of the Gentiles." Over and over he affirmed that he was an apostle, "not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:1). On the same principle the position, work, and responsibility of all the members of the body of Christ grew out of the gifts and qualifications possessed by them, and thus the church was divinely organized and divinely governed.

[Sidenote: Original bond of union]

The bonds which united primitive Christians in one body were essentially moral and spiritual. Christ was their ever-living and ever-acting head. Their life proceeded from him, and they were all one in him. While those living in widely separated districts consulted together concerning matters of general concern, or united in cooperative efforts to accomplish common tasks, there is not the slightest evidence that there was an external human organization of the primitive church—either sectionally, nationally, or universally—centralized under a human headship of the administrative, legislative, and judicial kind. Christ was the head of the general church, the head of all the local churches, the head of all the individual members of the church. In him, the source of their common life, the primitive Christians were essentially one, and by his Spirit he operated in all hearts, in all the individual churches, and in all the ministers whose particular gifts and qualifications fitted them for divinely appointed oversight, both local and general. By this means the primitive church was able to perform the work of Christ harmoniously and present to the world the grand spectacle of one body.

[Sidenote: First steps to ecclesiasticism]

Jesus taught the humble equality of the New Testament ministry. "All ye are brethren" (Matt. 23:8). According to the New Testament they were all of one general order or rank, although greatly diversified in gifts and qualifications and the kind of work accomplished by each. The first example we have in Scripture of positional authority in the ministry as distinguished from the authority of the Holy Spirit, is the case of Diotrephes, of whom the apostle John wrote in his third epistle. We are also informed as to the nature of the authority exercised by him and the direction in which it led. It was human authority, something additional and foreign to the authority and government through the Holy Spirit, and the first example of church government by a single man. It proceeded from the evil root of pride and ambition, the love of "preeminence" among the brethren; and this usurped power and authority led to a judicial process by which innocent brethren were 'cast out of the church.'

What a contrast this presents to that New Testament picture of the divine ecclesia, exhibiting the highest form of human society known to history, a body in which every member had his gift and use for it. Among these many activities, oversight and preaching had their place, but did not constitute the whole sum of Christian service. Paul describes Christ as the living head "from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love" (Eph. 4:16). The object of the ministerial function was "the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ" (verse 12, R.V.).

In his early epistle to the Philippians, Paul makes reference to the officers that guided that church. He sends greetings "to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" (Phil. 1:1). Polycarp, writing to the same church in the next century, addresses the "presbyters and deacons," showing that the apostolic order was still preserved there.

[Sidenote: Bishops vs. Presbyters]

In the Ignatian epistles, however, written early in the second century, there appears positional authority of a new order. In place of the New Testament standard of a plurality of elders, or bishops, jointly teaching and guiding the local church, we find recognition of an office which was superior to that of the presbyters and to whose incumbents alone the term "bishop" was applied. A few extracts from his writings will make clear this recognition of a threefold order of the ministry—bishops, elders, and deacons. "Wherefore, it is fitting that ye should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also ye do. For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp" (To the Ephesians, chap. 4). "He is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the will of Jesus Christ" (To the Magnesians, chap. 2). And again, in the same epistle he says, "I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbytery in the place of the assembly of the apostles" (chap. 6). "In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as the appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these there is no church" (To the Trallians, chap. 3). To the Smyrnaeans he writes: "See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father.... Let no man do anything connected with the church without the bishop" (chap. 8). "It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God" (chap. 8). "It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honors the bishop has been honored of God; but he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil" (chap. 9).

That this early recognition of a superior order of ministers was a distinct innovation is also shown from the literature of that period. In the Shepherd of Hermas, dating from the first part of the second century, elders and presbyters are distinctly named but no bishop in contrast therewith. In the so-called "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," also dating from the first part of the second century, bishops and deacons only are named as teachers and leaders of the church, showing that the original signification of the term "bishop" is here retained. Clement of Rome, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, speaks of the ministry as an institution of the apostles, but he mentions, nevertheless, only a twofold order—elders and deacons, presbyters and deacons, or bishops and deacons. The same classification is made in the second epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, a work which is generally ascribed to another author; so also in the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians.

[Sidenote: Innovation becomes general]

The superior office of the bishop as distinguished from the local presbytery was, therefore, an innovation, but in process of time its recognition became general. It is probable that in the local presbytery of the primitive church some one minister excelled in special gifts and qualifications and consequently became a natural leader of his brethren. Such leadership was of God, comes general because it was based on the authority proceeding from the Spirit of God. Such was the leadership which Paul held in a sphere of activity wider than a local congregation. But such was not positional authority or authority proceeding from a humanly created superior office and appointment thereto. It was of divine order. But this fact of distinguished leadership at first, doubtless furnished an excuse for the creation of a distinct office with carefully defined functions and limits of authority. The power of the bishop thus constituted advanced steadily. The churches of the cities where they were located extended their influences over smaller towns in the surrounding territory, and thus the city bishop came to rule over the elders of the lesser churches of a district.

[Sidenote: Development of hierarchy]

When the first step toward ecclesiasticism was definitely taken, by the recognition of official position authority, and government proceeding from human appointment alone, the way was prepared for rapid progress toward a highly organized system of man-rule. When the bishops met in provincial councils, special deference was given those bishops from cities of great political importance, and they were exalted to the presidency of these councils, and this in time led to the recognition of a new order of church officials—metropolitans. Later the metropolitans seemed too numerous for general utility in governmental functions; therefore general leadership gradually became centralized more and more in the bishops or metropolitans of certain of the most important cities, until they were finally given recognition as an order superior to that of metropolitans and were styled patriarchs. The first Council of Nice recognized this superior authority possessed by the patriarchates of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. The General Council of Constantinople placed the bishop of Constantinople in the same rank with the other three patriarchs, and the General Council of Chalcedon exalted the see of Jerusalem to a similar dignity. The race for leadership between the patriarchates then began. On account of the Moslem invasion in the seventh century, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch fell away from their former positions of greatness; therefore the rivalry for leadership was henceforth between the see of Rome and the bishop of Constantinople. Rome possessed many natural advantages, and consequently the bishop of Rome gained the greater prestige. The full-fledged papacy was the result.

[Sidenote: Fundamental causes]

What produced that transition from the humble apostolic church of the brethren to the medieval church of the impious Hildebrand, who caused monarchs to tremble on their thrones? The change resulted from two particular causes, and it is highly essential to our purpose that we understand them. One was a misconception both of the Fundamental constitution of the true church itself as designed by its Founder and of Christ's perpetual relationship to it; and the second was the imperialistic tendencies of that age to which the first error naturally exposed the church.

It is unnecessary here to recite at length that conception of the primitive church which we have described in preceding chapters as the concrete expression of the kingdom of God. Such was the only true catholic, or universal, church. Its catholicity, however, was a moral and spiritual dominion exercised over men by the truth and Spirit of God, and was rendered visible only in the society of redeemed believers who held the truth and bore its appropriate fruits of righteousness. Being composed of the redeemed, it lovingly embraced within its membership the entire brotherhood of Christ.

[Sidenote: Two theories of catholicity]

It is not too much to say that in the age in which Christianity first appeared it was difficult for men to appreciate the conception of a purely moral and spiritual authority which was to be universal and perpetual. Another idea of catholicity soon began to take possession of men's minds—the idea of a temporal and earthly organization of the kingdom of heaven. In this conception of the church the bond of union was not moral and spiritual—not the inevitable result of divine life and love in the individual members—but its pretended catholicity was to be secured by official, administrative, legislative, and judicial functions under a human headship and a self-perpetuating human magistracy. Such was the "mystery of iniquity," and in its developed form historically it was "the man of sin." The student of the New Testament can easily see that the great Founder never intended that the boundary of his church should be determined by the administrative functions of a self-perpetuating clerical corporation. But, on the other hand, the real church embraces the entire spiritual brotherhood, and out of this spiritual membership was developed by the Spirit of God the capacity and authority to teach, guide, and instruct. What a contrast these two conceptions present!

[Sidenote: The power of the keys]

Out of that worldly conception of the kingdom of God grew the Romish figment of the "power of the keys." According to this idea, Christ constituted his ministers a sort of clerical, close corporation invested with direct authority over souls so that without their priestly mediation the kingdom of heaven is forever shut against men. The words "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19) are evidently nothing more than a figurative expression indicating the moral influence in the kingdom which Peter in particular should wield with peculiar energy and efficiency. According to Matt. 18:18 all the apostles and others were to exercise the same functions. In time, this expression denoting moral influence and usefulness in the service of Christ was tortured into an engine of despotism and made the means of spiritual tyranny over the consciences of millions of men and women. The corporation entrusted with such power durst not be resisted, and the church was identical with the hierarchy.

But all of Rome's boasted catholicity, centralized in an official, administrative corporation, is a chimera; for it is a fact that multitudes are accepted of God as members of the divine family who are not identified with the hierarchy. The real catholic church, embracing the whole spiritual brotherhood, is therefore something else.

[Sidenote: Main source of ecclesiasticism]

But we have not yet reached in this discussion the tap-root of the evil tree of human ecclesiasticism. The fundamental error underlying all other errors on this subject, was the idea of an absent Christ. Notwithstanding the definite assertions of our Lord, "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" and "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them"—notwithstanding these reassuring promises and the definite statements of the apostles which represent Christ as the ever-living and ever-acting head of the church, soon after the apostolic period men lost the consciousness of the divine presence and began to think and to act as if Christ were indeed absent and would not return again for thousands of years. The presence of gigantic evils in the world with no apparent available means of redressing them, the dead weight of heathenism, and the disturbing influences of speculative Oriental philosophies impressed upon the conscience of the world a despairing pessimism. In the midst of this trial there was a revival of the Platonic philosophy. The treatise of Plato that made the most profound impression upon the religious thought of the second century was the "Timaeus," wherein the Deity is pictured as withdrawn from the world into a distant heaven separated from all creation because of the evil with which matter is essentially connected. With God withdrawn from the world and Christ absent on a long journey, what was man to do? What was the hope of the world?

Here ecclesiasticism found its real opportunity. Here human authority and government could be and was substituted for that spiritual dominion of Christ which gave life, form, and character to his church in primitive days. Here grew up that conception of the church as identical with the hierarchy whose power and authority was handed down by direct descent from the apostles and without whose priestly mediation there was no hope of salvation. Here was introduced the idea of world-wide centralization of administrative, legislative, and judicial functions in a self-perpetuating human headship. What a contrast! With Christ absent, the church an ark for the saving of the world, the truth a mere deposit made to the church for safe keeping to be handed down like a heirloom from generation to generation, and with a self-perpetuating priestly corporation as master of the destinies of the universe, we are prepared to understand the tyrannical rule of the church of Hildebrand and Innocent III. Traced to its source, this evil system is found to have sprung from that worldly conception of the kingdom of Christ which was substituted for the inconceivably grander conception of its Founder—a kingdom whose dominion is moral and spiritual under the personal supervision of Christ himself in all ages, and which embraces in its membership the entire spiritual brotherhood.



CHAPTER VII

THE REFORMATION

The age of popery's greatest glory was the world's midnight. I have not attempted to give an adequate description of that long reign of superstition and error preceding the reformation of the sixteenth century. Such is the particular province of ecclesiastical historians. I have simply confined the discussion to certain features essential to our present purpose.

One point of importance I have endeavored to impress, namely, that the papal hierarchy, with all its attendant evils, corruption, superstition, and spiritual despotism, was the logical successor of the Ante-Nicene church; that the ripened fruits of papalism were the direct results of the seeds of error planted in the second and third centuries. In view of this fact, one is led to inquire why true Christianity was not permanently buried in oblivion beyond the possibility of resurrection, how any reformation could be possible.

If Christianity were nothing more than a human religion, its reformation at such a period of decline and corruption would appear impossible. But Christianity was of divine origin. No matter how deeply it was buried under the rubbish of human tradition and superstition, no matter how grossly it was perverted and misunderstood by men, it still retained within itself the vital spark of divine life, the living principle of reformation.

[Sidenote: First cause of reformation]

The secret of this reformatory power was Jesus Christ himself, the great ever-living head of the church. Notwithstanding the decline of faith and morals among those professing Christ, the wonderful character of Jesus still stood out with remarkable clearness and power in the records of the New Testament and could not but exert a tremendous influence in spite of prevailing standards; could not but shed rays of light and warmth in the midst of the surrounding darkness. Although men's ideas of the church became perverted, they could not entirely lose sight of the great Founder of the church, and they could not escape the conviction that the record of the founding of that church was given in the writings of the New Testament and that these writings were worthy of peculiar veneration. Perhaps this is the main reason why the learning of antiquity was chiefly preserved in monasteries and churches. There were ecclesiastics in all these ages who were acquainted with the Scriptures in Latin, and this acquaintance tended to preserve the knowledge of Jesus the Christ as portrayed in the original gospel records. The history of that epoch proves that there were men who loved the Lord more than priestly forms and ceremonial observances. John Wyclif, Jerome of Prague, John Huss, and others experienced that deeper longing for personal relationship with Christ, and they proclaimed the gospel of Christ in a manner that could not be understood by the hierarchy of their times.

[Sidenote: Classical learning]

Jesus was indeed the Christ of God. The light which shone forth from his presence could not be totally obscured, and the moral power and influence of his life and teaching could not be destroyed. The revival of classical learning restored the Greek Testament to western Europe and attracted the attention of students and learned men in all the monasteries and universities. While the hierarchy insisted on the exclusive right to interpret the Scriptures, the simple reading of these wonderful records could not but create new conceptions of truth which no clerical prohibition could banish. Life was springing up in the midst of death.

[Sidenote: Love for truth]

The Reformation was the sincere effort of honest men to restore the truth of primitive Christianity, that the world might again experience the triumph of evangelical faith. To the everlasting credit of the Continental reformers be it said that their motives were not selfish. They sought not for themselves freedom of thought and speech nor church power. Their immediate object was the restoration of the gospel; all other results were but secondary. Nothing is more certain than that at the first Luther had no idea of assailing the organization of the papal church. Most of the reformers at the first still believed most earnestly in the imperial government of the universal church; and they relinquished this long-cherished ideal only when driven by force of circumstances which were at first unseen and unsuspected. Luther did not at first question the doctrine of the supremacy of the pope; but when he found that the reigning pope could not be reconciled with the principles of truth which he taught, Luther proposed to appeal the matters in question to a general council, notwithstanding the melancholy example, a century earlier, of the Council of Constance and the fate of John Huss and Jerome of Prague.

[Sidenote: Indulgences]

The real occasion for the outbreak of the Reformation was the papal traffic in indulgences. Leo X had great need of money for the building of St. Peter's, and other undertakings, and in order to fill the coffers of the church he had recourse to the sale of indulgences. The power of dispensing these indulgences in Saxony in Germany was committed to a Dominican friar named Tetzel, a fanatical enthusiast who entertained the most extravagant notions concerning their efficacy in forgiving not only the sins already committed but even those which were contemplated. Luther's soul burned with righteous indignation. Of what use was the doctrine that forgiveness of sin came by the death of Christ on the cross if any sinner could obtain it from an emissary of the pope for a pecuniary consideration. Luther felt that this infamous traffic was making the Word of God of none effect. He therefore drew up ninety-five theses against the doctrine of indulgences and nailed them on the church-door at Wittenberg. The printing-press scattered copies of these theses everywhere, and soon the continent of Europe was in a blaze of controversy. Such, in short, was the beginning of the Reformation and some of the causes leading thereto.

[Sidenote: Gospel standard sought]

The key-note of the reformers was, therefore, the gospel. The views of the reformers with respect to truth were not altogether harmonious, and it is evident that some of them had much clearer conception of the gospel than had others. Nevertheless, their primary purpose was the same. They were gradually forced to the conviction that Rome had made the faith of God of none effect by her traditions, errors, and superstitions, so much so as to make it practically unknown. It was the purpose of these heroic preachers to bring out these long-obscured truths and thus make them effectual in the saving of men. The main doctrine around which the Reformation centered was justification by faith independent of human mediation.

So far as the Reformation restored to the world right doctrine, it tended to correct the evils of that phase of the apostasy which we have characterized as the corruption of evangelical faith. But it did not remove that other evil characteristic of the apostasy, the parent of nearly all other evils—human ecclesiasticism. Viewed from one angle, that power appears to have been modified; but from another point of view, we can see that what was formerly an imperial system of centralized ecclesiastical control simply ended now in nationally centralized systems perpetuating the same principles. Thus, from the centralized dominion of the papal hierarchy there sprang the national, or state, churches in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, England, Sweden, and Scotland.

[Sidenote: Lingering influence of Rome]

We have already shown that development of ecclesiasticism which culminated in the papacy. From the primitive autonomy of the local churches, there came the centralization and consolidation of churches sectionally under a human headship with administrative functions, then provincial or national centralization, then finally the primacy of Rome over them all. The reason for this is evident. When the moral and spiritual dominion of Christ's kingdom was lost to view or could not be appreciated, the wrong conception of the church as a world-empire naturally took possession of men's minds; for in that age vast, centralized, imperial power was the ideal government. When, however, the political empire fell, and men witnessed the ruin of their political ideal, they sought to realize the same universal conception in a world-church possessing imperial powers under the pope of Rome.

[Sidenote: National churches]

At the period of the Reformation the Christian world had been in the grip of this world-church idea for more than a thousand years. As already stated, the reformers, whose minds were directed chiefly toward the restoration of evangelical doctrine, had at first no idea of breaking away from this standard. Evidently they had no conception of that moral and spiritual dominion of Christ by which alone he governs his church—a 'kingdom that is not of this world.' They therefore abandoned the world-church idea reluctantly, and not until the opposition of the hierarchy drove them to separation. When the issue was clearly drawn, they of course decided to obey God rather than man. Having no idea of the real spiritual character of the divine ecclesia, they had to content themselves with that national church unity which was still in their power.

The clergy, who had long been accustomed to the imperial tie, believed that a national headship was now necessary. The governments of Europe at that time were for the most part absolute monarchies, about the only limits to the sovereign power of these kings being the control which the pope exercised over the ecclesiastical affairs of the nations. From this control the Reformation liberated them. Therefore they eagerly took upon themselves the oversight of the national churches, and thus came into existence the church-and-state system of Protestant Europe. To a great extent the power that the imperial head of the church lost was acquired by the national heads.

All this seemed perfectly consistent to the reformers. They felt the necessity of lodging somewhere that power of human control which had been formerly exercised by the pope. As one writer has said, "They could not understand that Christianity could prosper without a strongly organized and governed church or without the presence of a strong and vigorous hand ready at all times to repress dissent and enforce uniformity of faith and worship." The time of absolute religious freedom was not yet.

[Sidenote: Ecclesiasticism perpetuated]

As might be expected, numerous modifications of the principles and usages of the papal church occurred in the change from imperial control to the state-church system. This diversity took place in the different countries in accordance either with prevailing conditions and sentiments or with the whims and caprices of the reigning sovereigns. While some retained the episcopate, others greatly modified it or rejected it altogether. In forms of worship, ritual, and other things numerous changes were also made. But notwithstanding the diversity in forms of worship and in church polity, in two respects there was perfect agreement among all the Reformed churches—two things brought over from the papacy—namely, first, the idea of a self-perpetuating clerical caste possessing in their corporate capacity legislative and judicial authority over the church; and second, the centralization under a human headship of administrative functions, instead of that local autonomy which prevailed in the congregations of apostolic times. The doctrine of the "power of the keys," a power wielded by a clerical corporation with authority to prescribe the very manner and form of worshiping God and to require men to comply therewith or else exclude them from gospel privileges. That doctrine was accepted without question. It was the same power in principle as that which was wielded so terribly by Gregory VII in the papal church of the eleventh century.



CHAPTER VIII

MODERN SECTS

[Sidenote: A mental picture]

Picture a keen observer living in the middle of the first century of our era. He travels about from place to place studying the development, nature, and fruits of the recently established religious phenomenon—Christianity. He observes the purity of its doctrines and the high moral standard exemplified in the lives of its adherents, and he inquires particularly concerning the secret of that mysterious bond which unites in one body and in one fellowship, sympathy, and love the entire society of believers in Jesus. He departs. After the lapse of long ages he returns near the beginning of the twentieth century, and lo, what is it that meets his astonished vision? The mournful spectacle of a divided Christendom; of rival sects compassing land and sea to make proselytes; of the spiritual alienation of those who, in reality, belong to the one divine family; of waste and inefficiency in methods of evangelical effort; not to mention the error, pride, and worldliness inherent in the gigantic ecclesiastical systems known as denominational churches. What a change!

It is useless to minimize the evils inherent in the sect system. Intelligent men the world over need not the services of an eye-specialist to see clearly that there is something wrong with modern Christendom; that the sect system does not represent the standard of primitive Christianity, but that in reality the sect principle misrepresents the apostolic ideal as portrayed in the New Testament. We may as well face the facts honestly and seek for a remedy for this disease that has so long marred the beauty and corrupted the nature of the true Christian system.

[Sidenote: Inherent evils]

I cheerfully admit that God has worked among his people in all ages in accordance with the degree of light and truth which they possessed. But I can not forget that the greatest revivals of evangelical religion have either taken place in spite of the sect system or among those who had just made their escape from the bondage of ecclesiastical despotism and had not as yet become very deeply affected by the sectarian principle. To what source, then, are we to trace sects? What is their cause?

[Sidenote: Alleged causes of sect-making]

A large proportion of the Christian world would reply without hesitation that the existence of the modern sects is due to these two things: the principle of religious liberty and the limitations of human knowledge. Such an answer reveals a superficial view of the whole subject. Religious liberty among Christians existed in the primitive church before the rise of ecclesiastical tyranny over the conscience, and the masses of men in those days were at least as limited in knowledge as are we. Still, the church was one; it was not divided into rival and hostile sects. There was no need in those days of constructing churches to conform to the limited capacity of men's minds; for there was already in existence a church sufficiently catholic in its nature and spirit to accommodate all classes of minds, because there was in operation the power of the Spirit of God which revealed truth to men and thus enlightened their minds and brought them into harmony with the divine standard. Concerning the principle of religious liberty, I shall have more to say hereafter.

[Sidenote: Human limitations]

The natural limitations of human knowledge may account for difference of opinion, but more than this is required to account for the entire system of organized sects such as we see it today. Millions of evangelical Christians possessing spiritual affinity and holding opinions no more divergent than often exist between members of the same sect, are, nevertheless, divided into independent, rival parties. Something else originated and now perpetuates that barrier between them.

When differences are fundamental and therefore unavoidable, they will become more pronounced under test than at any other time. If, during an epidemic, a physician believes that the method of treatment employed by another doctor is actually killing the patients, his opposition to such a method will then he stronger than at any other time. As long as that method is simply a theory, it is harmless. Only when put into practise does it become dangerous.

It is a matter of common knowledge that evangelical Christians are not driven further apart but are really driven together whenever Christianity itself is placed under any special trial, as, for example, in foreign missionary work in heathen lands. And even in our own country, whenever a great local interest is taken in the work of soul-saving there is a corresponding tendency for Christians of different sects to ignore their differences of opinion and get together as if they believed in a common Lord over all and were all members of the same family. Thus, whenever the high tide of evangelism comes in, the landmarks of sects are scarcely visible; but whenever the tide goes out, behold, the ancient boundaries of sects appear as before. This fact proves that there are no fundamental reasons why sects should exist. It proves that in reality sects are a barrier to the true work of Christ; hence are, in their essential nature, antichristian. What, then, is the real cause of sects'?

Traced to the original source, modern sects, we find, originated where the papacy originated—in the corruption of Christianity in the early centuries. All came from the same roots of error.

[Sidenote: True causes of sects]

However modified and diversified in external form and in doctrinal teaching they may now be, they exhibit in their ecclesiastical constitutions a foreign character derived from the foreign stock from which they sprang. Into this system there have been engrafted many noble scions of truth from the "good olive-tree," and these have produced commendable fruits of righteousness. But we are here concerned with pointing out those fundamental characteristics of the system that are foreign to the true church of Jesus Christ.

[Sidenote: Erroneous ideas of the church]

The first cause to which I call attention is an erroneous conception of the church itself. At the cost of some repetition I must point out that in the beginning the church was the universal company of the redeemed, the whole spiritual brotherhood, whether isolated members of Christ or those worshiping in local assemblies distributed over the earth. The tie which united these members of Christ in one body was their common faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and the life of the Spirit. But as in those times vast centralized imperial power was a divinity that every one worshiped, it was impossible properly to appreciate the moral and spiritual dominion of Christ by which alone he designed to rule his church; therefore men soon proceeded to pattern the church of Christ after the political government, first by grouping together under one administrative human headship the congregations of a province or section of the empire, and then finally uniting these different provinces under one administrative headship at Rome. From that day until the present time the church-idea that has generally prevailed in Christendom has been an organization fashioned according to the kingdoms of this world; a human organization in which the administrative functions of government are centralized under some form of human headship; a unity that is not moral and spiritual, but official and administrative, as well as legislative and judicial.

[Sidenote: Wrong standard of church-membership]

Coincident with the creation of foreign ideals concerning church societies was the formation of of a foreign idea of church-membership and church-relationship. In the beginning, as we have shown, the church was simply the divine family. Therefore salvation through Christ was its sole condition of membership. "And the Lord added to them day by day those that were being saved" (Acts 2:47, R.V.). And as the local congregation was but the concrete expression of the ideals of the general body or church, that membership in Christ which made men members of the general body, made them, by a moral and spiritual law, members of all the other members of Christ, and therefore fixed their local relationship: they belonged by divine right with whichever company of believers they happened to be associated. Nothing more than simple recognition of what God had done for them and the according to them of the local rights and privileges that naturally belonged to them was necessary on the part of a local congregation to make the actual union complete.

The wrong conception of the constitution of the church necessarily required another standard of church-membership. When church came to signify merely a group of congregations consolidated under a centralized human headship possessing administrative, legislative, and judicial functions (so organized as to distinguish it from all other organized groups or congregations), simple membership in Christ was insufficient to mark the convert with the stamp of denominational individuality. Salvation itself made no one a member of a church fashioned according to the kingdoms of this world. Consequently another standard of membership was necessary, a standard which required acceptance of and conformity to the self-made rules and regulations of that foreign society called a church. And when these earth-born institutions became identified in the public mind with the real church of Christ and membership in them became confused with membership in the true church of God, the natural result was that millions complied, in a formal manner at least, with the conditions of the counterfeit church membership who never knew what it meant to be vitally joined to Christ. In this we see the "evil" fruit which grew on that tree of error. The multitudes that have been by this means deceived with the thought that they were Christians, only to be lost at last, will not be known until that awful day of final reckoning.

[Sidenote: Divisive nature of the creeds]

The formation of creeds tends to create division and to perpetuate division. Caesar's maxim illustrates their history: "Soldiers will raise money, and money will make soldiers." So creeds will make sects, and sects will make creeds. "A creed or confession of faith is an ecclesiastical document—the mind and will of some synod or council possessing authority—as a term of communion by which persons and opinions are to be tested, approbated or reprobated." The sect churches are built on their creeds, although, of course, they affirm that their creeds are built on the Bible. In this case, however, it is usually apparent to the careful observer that the Bible is that part of the foundation which is buried out of sight below the ground. The creed is the real test applied to persons, the measure by which their opinions are judged. It is the creed upon which the sect is built that gives the denominational character and distinctiveness.

It is a fact of history that the primary purpose of the historical creeds was not to unite men but to separate them. The Nicene Creed was made to exclude the Arians. The Decrees of the Council of Trent were framed to exclude Protestants; the Westminster Confession, to exclude Arminians; and the Episcopal Articles, to exclude Catholics and Independents. To rally around a creed framed by human authority and make it the basis of union is but to teach a system—a sect system; but to rally around the person of Jesus Christ and make him the supreme object of our faith, hope, and love is to contend for what the Bible terms the faith, the truth, the gospel. This is infinitely better than any document proceeding from Nicea, Trent, Dort, Augsburg, or Westminster.

[Sidenote: Power of the keys]

Another cause, both for the origin of the sect system and its perpetuation, is the assumed "power of the keys" which has been carried over from the Church of Rome. The idea that the administrative rule and government of the church of Christ has been, by divine decree, centralized in a self-perpetuating clerical caste with authority to legislate for the church and then to enforce its decisions by judicial procedure, is foreign to the primitive church as recorded in the New Testament. It is a product of Papalism, and yet it has been, in its essential characteristics, transferred directly to the sects of Protestantism. The New Testament recognizes no such human positional authority. It recognizes only that divine authority which operates through God's chosen ministers and helpers by virtue of the Spirit-bestowed gifts and qualifications. The only governmental authority exercised by the New Testament ministers was in cooperation with Christ, the visible head, by putting forth, in accordance with the Spirit's gifts and qualifications, some portion of that moral power by which alone Christ governs.

The idea that to a clerical order has been committed the exclusive guardianship of the church, with full power to admit to or exclude from the worship and service of God all except those who come by way of their priestly mediation, is the basest assumption. It is a violation of the rights of individual conscience. Yet just such power has been and still is being exerted as a means of enforcing acquiescence in matters of opinion and submission to customs and practises which every unprejudiced man knows, or can soon see, is no part of the New Testament teaching and requirements. What a weapon has this ecclesiastical assumption been! One always ready for use. It makes no difference whether it is wielded by a Methodist conference, an Episcopal judicatory, a Presbyterian synod, or a Catholic pope, it is all the same in principle—"the power of the keys."

[Sidenote: Lack of religious freedom]

This assumed corporate power of the clergy has been one of the fundamental causes of sect-making. When a general clerical body assumes the right in its corporate capacity to prescribe rules of either faith or practise, written or unwritten, and then to enforce them by judicial action, it is a direct violation of the New Testament standard, and of the rights of individual consciences. It was because of this lordly, unscriptural rule that many sincere men of God have been forced to sever their connection with the older sects in order to find a place where a greater degree of light and truth could be experienced and proclaimed. In such cases it was not religious liberty that caused the formation of new movements and new sects, but the lack of religious liberty.

That "power of the keys," making and then enforcing the standards of creeds, has done violence to the conscience of both the clergy and the laity. Conscienceless persons subscribe to the creed without any particular hesitation, but the truly conscientious suffer the greatest embarrassment They must either refuse altogether and withdraw from all connection, or else subscribe with a mental reservation amounting practically to hypocrisy.

[Sidenote: Inflexible character]

This inflexible character of the sect institution has been a most fruitful cause for the production of new sects. No matter how spiritual the movement at its beginning, when its leaders were not longing for church power but were earnestly preaching the Word of the Lord as it came unto them, as soon as the sect machinery was thoroughly organized and was set in motion the inevitable tendency has been to throw around the movement a wall of creedal and ecclesiastical exclusiveness which shut out other true people of God; and then began a process of crystalization which ever afterwards precluded the unfolding of new truth. It is a well-known fact that the high tide of truth-discovery in every religious movement in Protestantism has been at the time of its beginning. A fixed law of immobility has ever afterwards prevailed. The reason is clear: whenever men grasp the reins of government and assume those prerogatives which belong to God alone, the rule of the Spirit ends. The unfolding of new truths by the operation of the Spirit is impossible within the limits of the old order where human ecclesiasticism reigns. But truth can not be permanently suppressed. If it can not find room for development within the existing order of things, God will raise up men who will, independently, proclaim the Word of the Lord. This he has done repeatedly, only to have the new movements end in the same manner—in a rule of human ecclesiasticism.

Human ecclesiasticism has always been the greatest barrier to the free spiritual development of the work of Christ. According to that relic of the papal church, authority and rule is vested in the clerical corporation and is by them conferred upon other individuals by the act of ordination. How different the standard of the Word! In the Old Testament times the office of prophet did not come in the priestly line, but on whomsoever the spirit of prophecy descended—whether upon Amos, the herdsman, or David, the king—he spake as he was moved by the Holy Ghost. There has never been a time under the divine economy when any man to whom the Word of the Lord came was not divinely authorized to proclaim his message wherever he could get a hearing, whether in synagog or temple, or out under the broad canopy of heaven.



CHAPTER IX

THE CHURCH OF THE FUTURE

What about the church of the future? Is the modern sect system the ultimate goal of Christian attainment in this world? While the sects contain much truth and many of the people of God, their ecclesiastical constitutions are foreign to the true church of Jesus Christ, and it is inconceivable that the great Founder would make no provision either in his Word or in his plan for the correction of the evils which have grown up around the Christian system during the dark ages of the world and which have in a great measure perverted the gospel itself and lessened its wholesome efficiency as the universal remedy for human ills.

Since no sect can make good a claim to being exclusively the church of God, a general feeling of toleration at least (if not in all cases of sincere respect) has come to prevail respecting the different denominational churches. Men have come to look upon the sects as a mere matter of fact, not to be seriously questioned, and we are supposed to cover the whole scene with the mantle of patience and charity and make the best of a bad situation.

[Sidenote: The Protestant truce]

Dr. J.M. Sturtevant has expressed this general attitude so well that I shall quote his own words: "It has long been true in this country that no Protestant can freely expose the errors and superstitions of the papal church, especially from the pulpit, without incurring the charge of intolerance, bigotry, and uncharitableness. Religious controversy itself has been placed under the ban, as in its own nature uncharitable. When once any religious opinion has organized itself into a sect, it is thought to have acquired a sacredness which, in the name of Christian charity and in the interest of the tranquility of the community, defends it from any open assault. We have come into the condition in which Rome was when she had extended her conquests from the British Isles to the Euphrates and had transferred to Rome the divinities of all the countries conquered. People of every nationality might worship their own divinities, but must respectfully tolerate the worship of every other. In this way only could religious conflict be avoided. The chief reason why Christianity was persecuted was that from its very nature it could accept no such truce. It is either a universal religion or no religion at all. It is, like all other systems which claim to be the true, in its own nature exclusive."

It is because of its universal character that truth can accept no such truce as has been declared by the modern sects. Truth is exclusive, and hence can make no compromises. The church of God is universal or it is no church at all. The whole truth concerning the church question must and will come out. The times demand it; the people of God demand it; the Spirit of God demands it; and, as we shall show, the Scriptures declare it.

[Sidenote: A new awakening]

It is very evident that the people of God are not satisfied with the present sectarian situation. Everywhere there is manifested a restlessness and uneasiness respecting the arbitrary lines of sect which separate between those who have a recognized spiritual affinity—recognized except formally by the ecclesiastical powers that be. The Christian consciousness is becoming awakened. Men are coming to see that Christianity is to be measured, not by sect lines, but by that broader, Scriptural rule of the divine family embracing all true disciples of Jesus—those who possess his life and bear the appropriate fruits of righteousness. This awakening, with its logical consequences, is what I have termed THE LAST REFORMATION. It will give form and character to the Church of the Future.

[Sidenote: Apologies for sects]

Sectarianism still has its defenders, however. In the midst of the rising tide of spiritual fellowship and love, there are those who bring forward a few sickly apologies for sects, apologies which generally impress the earnest student of the Scriptures with the thought that the apologist has a hard case to make out. The excuse most commonly advanced is that the sect system is a useful arrangement for accommodating the variety of tastes and feelings found among Christian people. It is assumed that some are natural-born Episcopalians, with an innate fondness for formal liturgies and ecclesiastical vestments, and that others are so constituted by nature as to require certain other particular forms of worship.

[Sidenote: Diversity of taste and culture]

If there is any such fundamental demand in human nature for a variety of sects, as different climates are required to suit different orders of life on our planet, it is strange indeed that the apostles overlooked such an important point and failed to provide for it. Why was not the primitive church constructed so as to bring into existence at once a variety of human sects to accommodate the different classes of people then existing? From the modern point of view they had an excellent excuse for starting with at least two churches—one for the Jews and another for the Gentiles; and if these had not been sufficient, before the end of their personal ministry they could have brought into existence a whole brood of sects.

Now, the student of the Scriptures knows that the apostles proceeded exactly in the opposite direction. They labored earnestly to bring all classes into love and fellowship in one body. This course was not in accordance with the wisdom of the world, but the twentieth century is beginning to see that it was "the wisdom of God."

The reason why men have a liking for formal liturgies, stately ceremonies, and ecclesiastical vestments is because of environment. They have been trained that way. Here again we see the natural tendency of sects to make sectarians and thus reproduce their kind. When particular forms and ceremonies, which are not required by Scripture, are enforced upon men by a self-constituted, self-perpetuating ecclesiastical authority, the inevitable result is to stamp the same principles upon succeeding generations and thus perpetuate the sect system exercising such authority.

[Sidenote: The sect spirit]

In a final effort to lessen the odium attaching to what is now widely recognized as an evil, some assert that the cause of mischief is the sect spirit. This statement contains truth, but it does not tell the whole truth. One of the worst evils of human slavery was the extreme tyranny which some slave-masters exercised. But the real fact was that the system itself tended to convert good men and women into tyrants. The special manifestation of evil was both effect and cause. It was the natural tendency of the system to make tyrants, and tyrants perpetuated the system. So also with sectarianism. Though all can realize a theoretical difference between the sect spirit and simple denominationalism, yet the very tendency of the system itself is to create party interests and to introduce party rivalries, which naturally foster the sect spirit. Without that devotion to party and party interests—a devotion almost equal to their devotion to the gospel itself—sects would perish. If sect-members should become so universal in their love and sympathy as to devote themselves to the work of Christ alone—forgetting party interests—sects would die. The sect spirit is, therefore, essential to the maintenance of the life and individuality of the sect body.

[Sidenote: What is the remedy?]

The remedy for sectarianism is not a return to imperialism. The world-church idea as exemplified in the papal church is not the goal of Christianity. Such might hold dominion over men in the barbaric ages of the world, but its universal sway has ceased. The Inquisition will never be reestablished. The unity of the church is not to be found in an imperial hierarchy.

Nor is Christian unity to be obtained by adherence to the historic creeds. These documents may express many noble sentiments respecting Christ and his truth, and they may express the fullest knowledge of the truth known in the days when they were written. But knowledge of the truth is progressive, while creeds are stationary. No human document, therefore, can serve as a permanent basis upon which to build our faith. And then, too, we have seen that creeds are in their very nature divisive. Hence they can not be made the basis for the realization of unity.

Nor is the unity of the church to be found in some particular form of exclusive church polity, as Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism, or Congregationalism. We have conclusively proved that that conception of the church patterned after the forms of political government, in which government and authority are vested inherently and exclusively in human hands, is foreign to the original conception of the church as it existed in the minds of its Founder and his apostles. The government of the New Testament church is a theocracy. Christ is head. He rules through his Holy Spirit by moral suasion and spiritual influence, and the ministers and helpers whom he calls and qualifies share in that oversight and responsibility to the same extent that they are able to wield the same moral and spiritual power. This is the only church authority and government recognized in the New Testament.

[Sidenote: The perpetual theocracy]

Here I shall digress long enough to point out by way of contrast the true form of divine government. Every one is familiar with the theocratic government of Israel under the Old Testament dispensation. God ruled. He who carefully reads the New Testament can not fail to discern the same type of government in the church before the rise of human ecclesiasticism. The first preachers of the gospel spoke with an authority not derived from a human source. When Peter and John were threatened before the Council and commanded not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus Christ, they gave the sublime answer: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we can not but speak the things which we have seen and heard" (Acts 4: 19, 20). The same principle stands out in bold relief in the experience of Paul. Although that great apostle was forward to cooperate with other apostles and ministers of Christ, one can not fail to see that his whole career exemplified the principle of theocracy. He "was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision."

[Sidenote: An important parallelism]

Permit me to call attention particularly to an important parallelism between the government of Israel under the theocracy and the government of the New Testament church before the rise of ecclesiasticism. God led his people out of Egypt by Moses and Joshua. These men are a type of Christ, who leads his people. After the Israelites were settled in Canaan, they had no central government, but each locality or city was autonomous, having its local judges or elders. In a time of crisis God raised up a judge to lead the people in the necessary cooperative efforts to preserve or regain their liberties. Their miseries Were always the result of their own sins, not a failure of the divine form of government. Their appointing a king and thus setting up a centralized human government was called rejecting God as ruler. And this is exactly parallel with what ecclesiasticism has done and is doing with the same results. God's government of the church is set aside and rejected.

[Sidenote: Not church federation]

Nor will an organic union of all the sects solve the problem of unity. In the first place, the tendency of such a union is toward imperialism, the creation on the federation plan of another world-church. In the second place, such a federation would strengthen rather than lessen the authority of human rule, while the compromises necessary to make such a project possible would lessen in the same degree that freedom of the Spirit by which alone the full gospel can be given to the world. And in the third place, such a federation would not be the church of God, for the very framework on which it would rest, human ecclesiasticism, is foreign to the original conception of the church. It would be only a human arrangement patterned after the model of a world-empire. And for another reason such would not be the church. The divine ekklesia includes in its membership the whole family of God. Thousands of men and women who are united to Christ and in fellowship with all the saved are not members of the formally organized sects. Therefore the union of all such churches in one federation would not include the whole family.

[Sidenote: Back to the Bible standard]

Thus, the remedy for sects is not church federation, nor a return to the historic creeds, nor the adoption of one of the exclusive forms of church polity; neither is it an attempt to hide the sin of the obnoxious sect system by covering it with a mantle of charity and patience—as a sort of necessary evil. What, then, is the real remedy for sects? It is the absolute rejection of every foreign element that has crept into the Christian system and the return to that primitive conception of the church as made up of the entire brotherhood of Christ, organized and controlled by the Holy Spirit. For true unity we must turn from hierarchies and apostolical successions and priestly corporations and church synods and human creeds to THE CHRIST who alone is the head of the church.

[Sidenote: True membership]

Such a movement requires a moral revolution with respect to the attitude of God's people toward membership in sects. It requires the obliteration of sect lines and the recognition of no other bond of union than that of a common brotherhood through union with Christ. Divine life secured through repentance and faith is the sole condition of membership in the church of Christ, and this relationship is maintained by obedience to the commands of Christ and consistent Christian conduct. "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).

[Sidenote: Elimination of ecclesiasticism]

Such a movement and such a standard of church relationship require the elimination of all ideas of priestly ecclesiasticism. The Christ of the New Testament church is not an absent Christ. He has never resigned his position as head of the church and vested the governmental authority in a self-perpetuating clerical caste. His government is theocratic. He administers it himself through his Holy Spirit. Hence no men or set of men can confer any power or authority whatsoever upon any individual to act for Christ. Christ calls his own assistants, and any man unto whom the Word of the Lord comes is divinely authorized to proclaim His message. The only sphere of human operation respecting this administration of divine government is simple recognition of what God has done, and this recognition in the last analysis belongs to the whole body of God's people. The basis of every man's authority and responsibility is, therefore, not human appointment or official position, but the divine call, gifts, and qualifications, that he possesses. If, for example, he is called to apostolic work and endowed with gifts and qualifications fitting him for such service, he has apostolic authority and responsibility, and there is nothing for other ministers or Christians to do but to recognize what God has done. "Now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him" (1 Cor. 12:18). Such, in short, is the divine organization and government.

[Sidenote: What of the future?]

The realization of this grand ideal of the restoration of the New Testament standard of church membership, government, and authority, is impossible within the sect system. For the sects to turn all the people of God loose from subjection to every foreign yoke and make them free to associate without restriction with all the saved of God, would be an act of suicide. Only by division and by holding the grasp of ecclesiastical rule can sects survive. But he is blind to the signs of the times who can not see that the grip of ecclesiasticism is slipping and the bonds of true catholicity becoming strengthened. The true people of God are becoming more and more dissatisfied with present conditions and are beginning to think in terms of a universal Christianity. The rising tide of evangelism among such is already beginning to overflow the lines of sect. What may we expect in the future?

Things can not continue as they have been in the ecclesiastical world. A sweeping reformation is imperative and imminent. In fact, the vanguard of this great movement is already visible. What will the future bring forth? Will the sects themselves fade away and gradually become dissolved? or will the powers that rule in the ecclesiastical world finally set themselves against the spirit of catholicity and thus practically force the true people of God to ignore absolutely all sectarian lines and step out on the broad platform of truth and universality, united in Christ alone, knowing no head but Christ and no creed but His truth? Who can tell?

[Sidenote: A fundamental difference]

In the present work I have given a brief historical sketch of the leading ecclesiastical events, showing the apostasy as it existed under two phases, the corruption of evangelical faith and the reign of ecclesiasticism. I have also shown that the reformations of Protestantism have tended to the correction of that first phase pertaining to doctrine, but that a complete reformation requires the elimination of ecclesiasticism. Hence what I have termed the Last Reformation, if it is to be the last, not only must include the restoration of pure doctrinal truth but must also restore the real church of the New Testament. So far as true doctrine is concerned, such a reformation will differ from other evangelical movements in degree only—it must ultimately comprehend the whole truth. But the fundamental difference between the reformation herein considered and all other preceding reformations is that it strikes the death-blow to the very root of error that produced the sect system—human ecclesiasticism—and substitutes therefor the administrative authority of the Holy Spirit working in varying degrees in all the members of Christ throughout the world. The last reformation therefore must differ from all others, not in degree only, but also in kind.

[Sidenote: The witness of prophecy]

God alone understands the future. During the ages past he has not left his own work without the witness of prophecy. We may rest assured, therefore, that in the prophecy of the divine Word he has given us an outline of the history of his church. So I shall ask the reader to patiently follow me through a brief sketch of ecclesiastical events as described in the prophecies of the Revelation. Such an examination will throw a large amount of additional light on the subjects I have already treated historically, and will also give us a divinely drawn picture of the church of the future. Such will enable us to understand better the real character and extent of THE LAST REFORMATION.



PART III

The Church in Prophecy



CHAPTER X

INTERPRETATION OF PROPHETIC SYMBOLS

[Sidenote: Value of prophecy]

The value of prophecy in establishing the religion of the Bible as the religion, of God has been generally recognized. Its value, however, is not limited to the proof of the divinity of Biblical truth which it furnishes: it serves a definite and most important purpose in the life and work of God's believing children in all ages. By it we are better able to understand God's own plan and purposes in human history, and by it we are made conscious of our own whereabouts along the pathway of time. The movements of God in the history of the past that were predicted by earlier prophets have received their chief inspiration from the conscious knowledge the leaders had of the prophetic character of their work. It was Daniel's study of prophecy that stirred his soul for the restoration of Israel to the favor of God and to their own land (Dan. 9:2), and at the same time opened his own heart for the wonderful revelation concerning future events. It was the consciousness of prophetic fulfilment that gave John the Baptist his inspiration for work (John 1:23); and in establishing the truths of the gospel of Christ, the apostles placed leading emphasis on the fact that these things were written in the law and in the prophets.

The love and care that Christ had for his people did not cease in the beginning of the gospel dispensation; for he gave the promise, "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." It is altogether reasonable, then, that we should receive "the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass" (Rev. 1:1). Through the varying conditions of time, Christ leads his people on to certain victory.

Since the mission of the church was to be world-wide and perpetual, it is fitting that the church should be described prophetically in order that we might have definite information concerning the operations of the divine hand in working out the great problem of the church's destiny after the close of the sacred canon.

[Sidenote: Prophetic symbols]

Before proceeding with our discussion of those prophecies which concern the church, let us pause and consider briefly the character of symbols. The prophecy of the Scriptures is presented to us in two distinct forms—direct statements in the ordinary language of life and in symbolic representations, but far the greater part is expressed in symbols, as in the book of Daniel and in the Revelation of John. Without an understanding of the nature of symbols we can not get a proper understanding of such prophecies.

Spoken or written language is a very complicated affair, but it is in reality an arbitrary arrangement. The name that we attach to a particular object could as well be given to a totally different object instead if we only agreed to make the change. For this reason spoken language is variable. Changes are constantly taking place. The language of Bible symbols, on the other hand, is not subject to the law of change, as we shall see; it is not based on arbitrary arrangement or mere convenience, but its foundational principles exist in the very nature of things.

Webster defines symbol as follows: "The sign or representation of any moral thing by the images or properties of natural things. Thus, a lion is the symbol of courage; the lamb is the symbol of meekness or patience." Horne, in his Introduction to the Study of the Bible, says: "By symbols we mean certain representative marks, rather than express pictures; or, if pictures, such as were at the time characters, and besides presenting to the eye the resemblance of a particular object, suggested a general idea to the mind, as when a horn was made to denote strength, an eye and scepter, majesty, and in numberless such instances, where the picture was not drawn to express merely the thing itself, but something else, which was or was conceived to be, analogous to it."

According to these definitions, the main idea of a symbol is the representation of an object or quality, not by exhibition of itself, but by another object or character analogous to it. Nor are we limited in the use of symbols to the exhibition of moral subjects alone. Any object may be symbolized, provided a corresponding object can be found.

[Sidenote: Analogy the basic law]

Analogy, then, is the fundamental law of symbols. This being true, it is clear that symbols must be definitely applied. They are not arbitrary. There is no reason why we could not call a book a table, and a table it would be, provided we agreed universally to adopt that designation; but we violate nature if we attempt to represent the quiet, peaceful, gentle disposition of a child by a lion or a tiger, or a cruel, vindictive, tyrannical disposition by a lamb. A polluted harlot may represent an apostate church, but not the true church. A proper correspondence of character and quality must be observed. We must follow nature strictly. And this is the law of symbols.

Symbols are drawn from different departments—from angelic life, human life, animal life, and inanimate creation. But in every case there is in the selection and use of the symbol a proper correspondence of character and quality.

[Sidenote: Twofold object of symbols]

The deciding factor in the original selection of a symbolic object is the nature of the thing to be symbolized. In the field of Bible prophecy the general design is in the main twofold—the representation (1) of the affairs of the church and (2) of the political history of those nations and kingdoms which were to exert an important influence on the life and development of the church. It is evident that in the divine estimation the church and its welfare is of infinitely greater importance than the affairs of nations and kingdoms. Therefore we may reasonably expect that, according to the nature of symbolic language, symbols designed to represent the church will be found to be of the most exalted type, whereas those representing political things will be found to be selected from an inferior department. In accordance with this fundamental classification we shall find that symbols drawn from angelic life and human life invariably refer to the department of ecclesiastical affairs, while those drawn from animal life or inanimate nature represent political things. The only apparent exception to this rule is that certain inanimate objects formerly consecrated to the service of God and thus associated with the department of the church are sometimes used to represent spiritual things, because the analogy is obvious. Bearing in mind this fundamental distinction between the representation of things political and things ecclesiastical, we are prepared to understand other shades of distinction.

Nations may be peaceful or tyrannical and oppressive, and churches may be good or apostate; but the exact character can be analogously represented by the symbolic object. A vicious wild beast stamping and devouring would naturally represent a cruel, tyrannical government; and a good woman represents the true church, while a vile harlot represents the church apostate. But whatever the nature of the symbol, whether beast, locust, lion, horse, temple, angel, or man, we may know at once from the nature of the symbol where to look for its fulfilment. This important guide in the study of prophetic truth—a guide overlooked by most of the commentators—relieves us of much of the uncertainty hitherto connected with the subject.

Since, as we have seen, symbolic language is based on analogy, it is evident that there are some objects whose nature forbids their symbolization, there being no corresponding object in existence. God can not be symbolized. "To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him" (Isa. 40:18). There may be certain symbols connected with his person setting forth the dignity, majesty, and eternal splendor of his name, but he himself appears unrepresented by another. The same is true also of the person of Jesus, our Redeemer, although in this case we must distinguish between the Christ incarnate and Jesus in his essential divinity. Considered as incarnate—both God and man—the human aspect of his character as manifested in his sacrificial death may be analogously represented as a Lamb slain. But considered in his essential divinity, he can not be symbolically represented. Therefore, whenever the glorified Christ appears on the symbolic stage, he always appears in his own person proclaiming his own name. "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore" (Rev. 1:18). "He hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords."

In Rev. 6:9 the souls of the martyrs are represented as crying unto God for the avenging of their blood on them that dwell on the earth. There is no object analogous to a disembodied spirit. It is easy to give them an arbitrary name. Therefore they simply appear under their own appropriate titles as "the souls of them that were slain."

Whenever we attach a literal significance to a symbolic object, we immediately destroy its character as a symbol. This should not be done. With the exception of those instances where the nature of an object forbids its symbolization and where the description must therefore of necessity be literal, we should always look for the true fulfilment, not in that department from which the symbol is drawn, but in another department—that to which the symbol by analogy refers us.

[Sidenote: Field of present inquiry]

The limits and object of the present work preclude an exhaustive treatment of prophecy in general. Our immediate purpose is to set forth particularly those prophecies of the divine Word which clearly portray and outline the character of a world-wide religious movement in the last days. To do this effectually, however, we must briefly consider those prophecies which describe the principal ecclesiastical events in history which form the basis of, or lead up to, the Last Reformation. The subject as outlined in the prophecies and as based on the facts of history, naturally divides into four parts, or epochs, as follows:

I The Apostolic Period II The Medieval Period III Era of Modern Sects IV The Last Reformation

For the sake of brevity, we shall, as far as possible, exclude from our present inquiry those prophecies pertaining to civil and political affairs, retaining only such as have an important bearing on the church subject.



CHAPTER XI

THE APOSTOLIC PERIOD

[Sidenote: The star-crowned woman]

The twelfth chapter of Revelation introduces an important line of prophetic truth respecting the church, beginning with these words: "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: and she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered." "And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days" (verses 1, 2, 5, 6).

As we have already stated and as will be made very clear hereafter, symbols drawn from human life are used to represent ecclesiastical affairs. Therefore in the symbol now before us we have a representation of the church, and from the general description given we infer that it must be the pure church of God, for the brightest luminaries of heaven are gathered around her and no evil thing is said concerning her. That this woman is the special object of God's care and concern is further shown by the fact that when she fled into the wilderness, she had "a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there." That this interpretation of the woman is correct is also shown by other texts in Revelation.

In chapter 21:9 an angel talking with John said, "Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife." And again, in chapter 19:7, where the church is undoubtedly referred to, a great multitude is represented as saying, "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." In the seventeenth chapter the church apostate is without doubt described by the symbol of a vile, polluted harlot.

The pure woman of chapter 12, then, represents the apostolic church in all its beauty and glory. She is represented as clothed with the sun, a striking emblem of the light of the glorious gospel of Christ which shone forth from the early church. The moon under her feet is generally understood to designate the typical worship of the Jewish age, which was a shadow of things to come but which now stands eclipsed in the superior light and glory of the new and better dispensation. The moon is the lesser light and derives its illumination from the sun; so also the Mosaic period was the moonlight age of the church and reflected a part of the gospel which, at a later time, was to be revealed in all its glory with the rise of the "Sun of righteousness."

The crown of twelve stars adorning the diadem of the church is a fit representation of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, they being in one important sense permanent fixtures in the church. According to chapter 1:20, stars are sometimes used to represent Christian ministers, the analogy as light-givers being obvious. "They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever" (Dan. 12:3).

The prominent position occupied by this woman and the light which shone forth from the sun with which she was clothed stand out in marked contrast with the later description given of her flight into and seclusion in the wilderness. The latter stage of her experience I shall describe further on, but a brief allusion to it will make her first appearance more impressive. The wilderness describes the apostasy which was to envelop the woman and thus obscure her light. Therefore her first appearance as in the planetary heavens presents a sublime description of her dignity and excellence in the morning time of the gospel era. Her light shone upon all and her glory could be seen by all. She presents that fundamentally distinct characteristic of the true church of God—universality; not a mere isolated star shedding its feeble rays in competition with the other orbs of night; but a cluster of bright, shining stars and the very sun itself. The light of the apostolic church was, therefore, all-inclusive in the sense of reflecting all the truth. It is essential to our proper understanding of the symbols that follow that we comprehend the true character of the church of God—the bride of Christ.