1. Inasmuch as many deny the Bible teaches that the Church of
Christ should never totally apostatize, I will here prove that it teaches its preservation
until the Second Coming of Christ. Let us first settle what is the church.
The M. E. Discipline defines the church: “The visible Church of
Christ is a congregation of faithful men in which the pure Word of God is
preached, and the sacraments duly administered according to Christ's ordinance
in all things that are of necessity requisite to the same.”1
Substituting ordinances for “sacraments” and adding Scriptural Church
Government, this definition is good.
Dr. Hiscox: “A Christian Church is a congregation, of baptized
believers in Christ, worshipping together, associated in the faith and
fellowship of the gospel; practicing its precepts; observing its ordinances;
recognizing and receiving Christ as their Supreme lawgiver and ruler; and
taking His Word as their sufficient and exclusive rule of faith and practice in
all matters of religion.”2 This expresses what the Methodist
Discipline seems to mean, but with much more clearness. With equal clearness J.
M. Pendleton, D.D.,3 E. Adkins, D.D.,4 H.…
1
Art. 13.
2
Baptist Church Directory, p. 13.
3
Pendleton’s Church Manual p. 7.
4
Adkins’ The Church; its Polity and Fellowship, p. 18.
…Harvey, D.D.,1 Henry M. Dexter, D.D.,2 W.
W. Gardner, D.D.,3 William Crowell, D.D.,4 say the same
thing. The New Hampshire Confession says: “We believe that a visible church of
Christ is a congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the
faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the ordinances of Christ;
governed by His laws; and exercising the gifts, rights and privileges invested
in them by His Word,”5 etc.
Ekklesia — the word for church occurs 114 times in the New
Testament. In all but three it is rendered church. It refers to the Christian
Church once typically, (Acts 7:38) the remaining 110 occurrences antitypically.
In 99 instances, by counting, I find it denotes local organizations; in 12, by
synecdoche, it means all the local organizations. It is used by synecdoche in
Matt. 16:18; Eph.3:10, 21; 5:23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32; Heb. 12:23, and, possibly,
one or two other occurrences.
Says E.. J. Fish, D.D.: “All investigation concurs with
'unequivocal uses of the term in pronouncing the actual church to be a local
society and never anything but a local society.'”6 “The real Church
of Christ is a local body, of a definite, doctrinal constitution such as is
indispensable to the unity of the Spirit.”7 Alluding to its
application to all professors, of all creeds, scattered everywhere, as an “invisible,”
“universal church,” Dr. Fish well says: “Not a single case can be adduced where
the loose and extended use of the collective can be…
1
The Church, p. 26.
2
Congregationalism, p. l.
3
Missiles of Truth, pp. 189,190.
4
Church Members' Manual, p. 35.
5
Art. 13.
6
Ecclesiology, p. 114.
7
Idem, p. 116.
…adopted without a forced and unnatural interpretation. The New
Testament is utterly innocent of the inward conflict of those theories which
adopt both the invisible, or universal, as it is now more commonly called, and
the local ideas.”1
H. M. Dexter, a Congregationalist, was forced to say: “The weight
of New Testament authority, then, seems clearly to decide that the ordinary and
natural meaning of ekklesia, rendered church, is that of a local body of
believers.”2
Says Ralph Wardlaw, D.D., a Congregationalist: “Unauthorized uses
of the word church. Under this head, I have first to notice the designations,
of which the use is so common, but so vague — of the church visible and the
church mystical, or invisible. Were these designations to be found in the New
Testament, we should feel ourselves under, obligation to examine and ascertain
the sense in which the inspired writers use them. This, however, not being the
case, we are under no such obligation.”3
A. Campbell: “The communities collected and set in order by the
Apostles were called the congregation of Christ, and all these taken together
are sometimes called the kingdom of God.”4
Moses E. Lard, of the difference between the kingdom and the
church: “My brethren make none.”6 On the same page: “God has not one
thing on this earth called his kingdom and another called his church.” That
church refers to a local body, any one can see by such as Matt. 18:17; Acts,
8:1; 9:31; 11:26,32; 13:1; 14:23,…
1
Idem, p. 102.
2
Congregationalism, p. 33.
3
Wardlaw's Cong. Indep., p. 54.
4
Christian System, p. 172.
5
What Baptism is For, No. 3, p. 5.
…27, 15:3, 4, 22, 41; 16:5; 18:22; Rom. 16:1, 5; 1 Cor. 1:2; 4:17;
7:17; 11:16; 2 Cor. 8:1, 18, 19, 23, 24; 11:8, 28; 12:13; Gal. 1:2, 22; Rev.
1:4; 2:1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, 29; 3:1, 6, 7, 13, 14, 22; 22:16. A careful
comparison of these references will prove that the church is a local body,
administering the ordinances, discipline, etc., known as church when but one in
any locality, and churches when several of them are spoken of. Kingdom, in the
New Testament, means the aggregate of the churches, just as any kingdom means
the aggregate off its provinces — or countries of which it is composed. A
kingdom includes the unorganized part of its geographical territory. In the New
Testament, likewise, the term kingdom may include regenerate persons who have
been misled so as to have never united with any of the churches or organized
parts of the kingdom, such an instance is Rev. 18:4, where Christians are
exhorted to come out of the Romish church. But, in no instance, either
politically or ecclesiastically, can the application of the term kingdom to the
organized localities, or parts, exclude the organized as necessary to the
kingdom.
W. M. F. Warren, D.D., President of Boston University, Methodist: “Christian
Church is the kingdom of God, viewed in its objective or institutional form.”1
“In an earlier period this kingdom was identified with the church…The
Protestants regarded it…as the Christian institution of salvation.”2
Barnes: The kingdom means “the state of things which the Messiah
was to set up his spiritual reign began in the church on earth, and completed
in heaven.”3
* Except that there is no general organization of the churches but each church is in organization, independent of every other church, save as Christ is King over them all.
1
Essay before the Proph. Conf., held in N. Y., in 1873.
2
Schaff-Herzog Ency., vol. 2, p. 1246.
3
Com. on Matt. 3:2.
Neander, while stating that the kingdom is used in other sense, —
which, by the way, can easily be included in the one he mentions — says: “The
idea of the Church of Christ is closely connected in the views of Paul with
that of the kingdom of God.”1 “At the time of which we are speaking,
the church comprised the whole visible form of the kingdom of God.”2
Andrew Fuller regards the kingdom and the church indissoluble when
he says: “If the nature of Christ's kingdom were placed in those things in
which the Apostles placed it, the government and discipline of the church would
be considered as means not as ends.”3
G. W. Clarke: “This kingdom, reign, or administration of the
Messiah is spiritual in its nature (John 18:36; Rom. 14:17) and is exercised
over and has its seat in the hearts of believers. — Luke 17:21. It exists on
earth (Matt 13: 18, 19, 41, 47) extends to another state of existence (Matt.
13:43, 26, 29; Phil. 2:10, 11) and will be fully consummated in a state of
glory (1 Cor. 15:24; Matt. 8:11; 2 Pet. 1:11). It thus embraces the whole
mediatorial reign or government of Christ on earth and in heaven, and includes
in its subjects all the redeemed, or, as Paul expresses it, (Eph. 3:15) 'the
whole family in heaven and earth.' Kingdom of heaven and church are not
identical, though inseparately and closely connected. The churches of Christ
are the external manifestations-of-this kingdom in the world.”4
In an excellent article in Smith's Bible Dictionary.5
A. Hovey, D.D., President Newton Theological Seminary, says: “This kingdom,
though in its nature piritual, was to…
1
Plant, and Tr. of the Chr. Ch., p. 455.
2
Idem. p. 458.
3
Fuller's Works, vol. 2, p. 639.
4
Com. on Matt. 3:2.
5
Vol. 2, pp. 1541, 1543.
…have, while on earth, the visible arm in Christian Churches, and
the simple rites belonging to church life were to be observed by every loyal
subject (Matt. 28:18; John 3:5; Acts 2:38: Luke 21:17: I. Cor. 11:24.) It
cannot, however, be said that the New Testament makes the spiritual kingdom of
Christ exactly co-extensive with the visible church. There are many in the
latter who do “not belong to the former, (1 John 2:9,) and some, doubtless, in
the former, who do not take their place in the latter.”
Tholuck: “A kingdom of God — that is an organic commonwealth.” “The
New Testament kingdom of God, is both from within and from without, in the
individual as in the whole community.” “The idea of the kingdom of God …is an
organized community, which has its principle of life in the will of the
personal God.”1
In the invisible church and kingdom theory are all disorganizers
who reject baptism and church organization. Under the pretense of great zeal
and spirituality they make the invisible everything and the organization
nothing. This is illustrated by the following from The Watchman, of Boston:
“But, of late, there has been a marked disposition among certain thinkers to contrast the 'kingdom' with the 'church,' to the disadvantage of the latter. What we need today, they say, is not to strengthen the church, but to extend the kingdom of God; to work for the reorganization of society and the influence of Christian principles and motives in every department of life, and not for the salvation of individual men and women, which is the peculiar work of the church. Some of these writers have gone so far as to imply that the church is the greatest obstacle in the way of the advance of the kingdom of God.”
1
Sermon on the Mount, by Tholuck, pp. 71, 74.
As Luke 17:21 is the main passage for an invisible kingdom, I
submit the following from that critical scholar,
Dr. Geo. Varden:
“The weight of critical authority inclines mightily to 'in your
midst.' Lexicon Pasoris (1735) so renders. Raphel (Nota Philologica 1749) similarly.
Rosenmuller (Scholia, 1803) seeks to show at some length that, though entos may
in general mean within, the character of the persons addressed forces the other
meaning. Bretschneider (Lexicon, 1829) translates, 'The: founder of. the divine
kingdom is already in your midst.' Alford (Critical Greek Testament) 'The
misunderstanding which rendered these words within you, should have been
prevented by reflecting that they are addressed to the Pharisees, in whose
hearts it certainly was not.' Then, 'among you' is the marginal reading of the
authorized version: and it has justly been said that, as a rule, these readings
are preferable to the text. Moreover, the latest revision of the A. B. Union
reads, 'The kingdom of God is in the midst of you.' Writes Thayer in his Greek
Lexicon of the New Testament (the latest and by many regarded the best) 'In the
midst of you, others within you (id est, in your souls) a meaning which the use
of the word permits, but not the context.' And Godet, in his recent critical
Commentary on Luke, writes, 'These words are explained by almost all modern
interpreters in the sense of in the midst of you.'”
To this I add the words of Dr. Bloomfield, on this passage: “Is
among you ...On this interpretation the best commentators are agreed and adduce
examples of this use of evroc …The kingdom of God has even commenced
among you, i. e., in your own country and among your own people.” So Paulus,
Fleck, Bornemann, DeWette, Doddridge, Beza, Raphaelius, et al.
Inasmuch as Acts 19:32, where ecclesia is rendered “assembly,” is presumed to prove it means, also, a “mob,” I submit the following conclusive critical refutation, from the late and lamented J. R. Graves, LL. D.:
“Let us, without prejudice, look into this question. (1.) Ecclesia
is nowhere in the whole range of classical Greek usage used to denote a 'mob'
or an unorganized or riotous crowd. (2.) It is nowhere so used in Septuagint
Greek. (3.) It is no-where else in the 111 instances of its occurrence in. the
New Testament used to denote a mob or riotous crowd. This should arouse
suspicion that it may not have this unwonted meaning here. Certainly if it can
mean a lawful and organized assembly here, we should give it that
signification. It certainly can, and I believe should be, given the sense of a
lawful assembly— even a political body possessed of civil functions.
“Ephesus was a free city of Greece. Every free city was governed
by (1) jury courts — Diakastres — that had jurisdiction over all
criminal cases. (2.) The ecclesia, which was an organized body composed of all
free citizens entitled to vote, and presided over by a recorder. The meeting
place of the ecclesia at Ephesus, as at Athens, was in the theater — as the
capital at Frankfort is for the sessions of the Kentucky Legislature, (3 ) The
council of five hundred corresponded to our Senate or the House of Lords.
Ephesus, then, had an ecclesia, and its meeting place the great theater of the
city, and its duty to look after the general peace and welfare of the city —
not to sit as a criminal court to try personal offenses.
“Let us now examine Luke's account of what took place, remembering
that the ecclesia may have been in session before the uproar commenced, or that
it, as it was its duty to do, came immediately together as soon as cognizant of
it. Demetrius and his workmen and the mob, Laving seized Gaius and Aristarchus,
rushed with them into the assembly, 'and some [of the mob] cried one thing and
some another, and the ecclesia was confused' by these varied cries, while no definite
charge was brought to its notice of which it could take cognizance. Now mark it
was not the ecclesia that was riotous, but 'oklos' — crowd that had rushed into
the theater where the ecclesia assembly of Ephesus was in orderly session, or
had gathered to hold one; for it was the 'oklos,' not the ecclesia, that the
presiding officer of the ecclesia quieted. (See Acts 19:35.) He informed this
riotous, 'oklos' crowd, 'if Demetrius and the workmen with him had a charge
against any man, there were the courts and the proconsuls; but if it was about
other things the ecclesia would settle it.' The ecclesia was responsible for
public tumults, insurrections, etc., and the officer appealed to the crowd to
be quiet and disperse, 'for,' said he, speaking for the ecclesia, 'we are even
in danger of being accused about the tumult of today, there being no cause by
which we [the ecclesia] can excuse this concourse' — sustrophes — not ecclesia.
And having said this, he adjourned, dissolved, the assembly — ecclesia — not the
sustrophes — mob — which he could not dismiss. Now, in this account, we have,
in Greek, four terms used: 'deemos,’ people; 'oklos,' crowd; 'sustrophes,’ mob;
'ecclesia,' assembly — a body having civil jurisdiction. Ecclesia and
sustrophes are never used interchangeably, never mean the same body.”
Were we to admit that ecclesia here meant a “mob,” since the
church in no way involves a mob, this passage has no bearing on what is the
church. Liddell and Scott, in their Greek Lexicon, define the word, “ekklesia,
an assembly of citizens summoned by the crier, the legislative assembly.”
Dean Trench says: “Ekklesia…as all know, was the lawful assembly
in a free Greek city o£ all those possessed of the rights of citizenship, for
the transaction of public affairs. That they were summoned is expressed in the
latter part of the word; that they were summoned out of the whole population, a
select portion of it, including neither the populace, not yet strangers, nor
those who had forfeited their civic rights — this is expressed in the first.
Both the calling and the calling out, are moments to be remembered, when the
word is assumed into a higher Christian sense, for in them the chief part of
its peculiar adaptation to its auguster uses lie.”
If the kingdom and the church mean “the reign of grace in the
heart without a visible organization,” as grace had reigned in the heart, at
least, from the time of Abel, Dan. 2:44 and Matt. 16:18, could not have spoken
of the kingdom and the church as not built before the New Testament age.
A kingdom without organization — definite, ascertainable laws, is
but the creature of the babel of sectarianism. It never did exist, in nature,
in politics or in grace; and never can exist. It is twin brother to the notion
that there is an “invisible church” — as if there were invisible men and women!
The only part of the church which is invisible is the internal part and that
part which has “crossed over the river.”
That the term church in the New Testament, always means,
literally, in the language of the New Hampshire Confession, “a congregation of
baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the
gospel, observing the ordinances of Christ,” and, in its few figurative uses,
the aggregate of the local churches, and that the church and the kingdom are so related that neither can
exist without the other, I have now clearly demonstrated.
THIS BEING THE CASE, EVERY PROMISE OF PRESERVATION AND PERPETUITY,
MADE TO THE KINGDOM, IS A PROMISE TO THE CHURCHES OF WHICH IT IS COMPOSED, AND
vice versa.
I will now proceed to prove the Bible promises that the church
should never so far apostatize as to lose its existence as a true church.
I. “I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will
not turn away from them to do them good, but I will put my fear in their
hearts, that they shall not depart from me.” — Jer. 32:40. (1.) That this
refers to the New Testament none will deny. (2.) That the church and the “covenant”
are indissoluble, will not be denied. (3.) That this covenant and its subjects
are in contrast with the old covenant and its subjects, is equally evident.
From this it follows, that, inasmuch, as the people of the old covenant
apostatized, and that they were repudiated of God, the new covenant and its
people are everlastingly united to Him. This is positively affirmed: (a) an “everlasting
covenant;” (b) “fear in their HEARTS;” (c) “that they SHALL NOT DEPART from me”
— no departing from God, as under the old covenant, no apostate Israel, hence
Church Perpetuity. The only possible way to deny that this is a positive
promise of Church Perpetuity is to affirm that God departs from His people, who
do not depart from Him, which is affirming that He is unfaithful.
II. “In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up
a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left
to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms,
and it shall stand forever.”
— Dan. 2:44. (1.) Here God affirms He will set up a kingdom — but one kingdom.
(2.) This kingdom includes the church or churches, as the United States
government includes the State or the States. (3.) That this kingdom and church
or churches are indivisible, is certain. (4.) He affirms this kingdom,
including His church, shall not be left to other people; i.e., under the law of
the old covenant, the kingdom, because of apostasy, was given to the Gentiles —
“other people,” but under the law of the new covenant there shall be no
apostasy of the church, so as to cause it to be given to “other people” — to
Wesley, Calvin, etc., and their followers.
No room here for men to set up churches of their own on the ground of
the original churches having all apostatized. (5.) This kingdom “ shall NEVER
be destroyed.” (6.) This kingdom “shall stand FOREVER.” (7.) This kingdom,
instead of becoming apostate, shall be aggressive — “shall break in pieces and
consume all 'other kingdoms.'” (8.) The days of these kings refer to the days
of the Caesars. The only possible way of avoiding this promise of Church
Succession is to deny that this kingdom and church are indissoluble. That this
denial is vain is evident, from the fact, that, in the New Testament, the two
are never separate, and the promises of preservation therein to the one are
equally to the other. So writers of all denominations hold them one. Here,
then, in the Old Testament are the most unequivocal promises of Church
Perpetuity.
III. “Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of
hell shall not prevail against it.” — Matt. 16:18. (1.) This is church, but
one kind of church — a kingdom — not “branches.” The New Testament says that,
as individuals, Christ's disciples are “branches” of Him. But it nowhere so
much as intimates there are “branches of the church.” If there are “branches of
the church” where is their trunk?? (2.) Christ built His church. Wesley,
Calvin, Campbell, etc., built theirs. He built it on a sure foundation. — Isa.
28:16; Ps. 118:22; Eph. 2:20; 2 Tim. 2:19. (4.) The church and its foundation
are indissolubly joined together by undying love. (5.) “The gates of hell shall
not prevail against it,” — it “shall never be destroyed,” but “shall stand
forever.” Bengel well says: “The Christian Church is like a city without walls,
and yet the gates of hell, which assail it, shall never prevail.” “A most
magnificent promise.”1 So say Stier, Adam Clarke, Scott, Barnes, G.
W. Clarke, Bloomfield, Horsley, Vitringa, Olshausen, Doddridge and Lange, et
mul al. Has Christ's promise failed?
The following are Campbellite concessions:
“The rock is not that against which the unseen is not to prevail;
neither has the church ever become extinct. These we deem gross errors.”2
Mr. Fanning: “The church was built upon the rock laid in Zion; that she has
withstood the rough waves of eighteen centuries, and that she will finally
triumph over all the principalities and powers of earth.”3 David
Lipscomb: “God founded a church that 'will stand forever;' that the gates of
hell shall not prevail against.”4 “True witnesses of Christ never
failed from the earth.”5 †
† That these Campbellites and Pedo-baptists, when they come to justify the origin of their churches, say the gates of hell did prevail against the church, is true. But, then they speak from their churches; here they speak from the Bible.
1
Com. in loco.
2
Lard's Quarterly Review for 1886, p. 309.
3
Living Pulpit, p. 520.
4
Gospel Advocate for 1867, p. 770.
5
Isaac Errett's Walks about Jerusalem, p. 142.
IV. “Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, all power is given
unto me in Heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and
lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” — Matt.
28:18-20. (1.) Christ here promises His presence. (2.) His presence is here
implied to be the only guarantee of the fulfillment of the mission, but the
sure one. (3) This promise is to His church. That this is true is evident from
the Great Commission having been committed to only the church. This will hardly
be questioned. (4.) Christ's promise is to insure that the nations will be
discipled, baptized, etc. That He has promised to be with His church to
guarantee the preservation of baptism — all things included in the commission —
is, therefore, clear. (5.) Christ promises His presence always, all the days — pasas
tas heemeras — not leaving a single day for apostasy. (6.) If this church
has gone into Babylon He is gone there too, and all are lost — “Lo I am with
you alway even unto the end of the world. Amen.” Bengel says on this : “A
continual presence, and one most actually present.” “This promise also belongs
to the whole church.”1 Inasmuch as Methodism, Presbyterianism,
Campbellism, etc., are “but of yesterday,” this promise cannot apply to them.
On this Stier says: “He is present with his mighty defense and aid against the
gates of hell, which would oppose and hinder His church in the execution of His
commands.”! So, G. W. dark, Scott, Matthew Henry, Barnes, Doddridge, Olshausen,
and Adam dark, et. mul. al.
1
Com. In loco.
V. “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is
the head of the church: and he is the Savior of the body…Christ also loved the
church, and gave Himself for it…that He might present it to Himself, a glorious
church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be
holy and without blemish.” — Eph. 5:2S, 29. (1.) This is taken from the
relation of husband and wife. (2.) The husband that does not use his utmost
power to save his wife is an unfaithful husband. (3.) Only his lack of power
prevents him from saving his wife. (4.) For Christ to not use His utmost power
to save His church would be for Him to be unfaithful to her. (5.) Only by His
lack of power can the church apostatize. (6.) But, “all power m heaven and in
earth” belongs to Him; therefore the church is insured forever against
apostasy. He “gave Himself for it” and He is its “Savior.'' (7.) An apostate
church is not a “glorious” church, has spots, wrinkles, serious blemishes. (8.)
But, inasmuch as Christ's church has “no such thing,” His church shall never
apostatize. On this Adam Clark says: “Christ exercises His authority over the
church so as to save and protect it.”1 Verses 26 and 27, Bengel,
Matthew Henry and Adam Clark say allude to “the different ordinances which He
has appointed;'' hence they agree that the passages speak of the Church
organization.
VI. Having been “built upon the foundation of the Apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the
building fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord.” — Eph.
2:20, 21. (1.) This building — the church — is “fitly framed together.” (2.) It
is framed — JOINED to its foundation — “in whom.” (3.) A church being framed…
I Com. in loco.
…to the foundation so as to be removed from the foundation is not “filly
framed,” the only “fitly” framing, according to the spirit and the design of
Christianity, is that which so frames the church into its foundation, that it
can never be razed by the devil; and, thus, Wesleys, Campbells, Calvins left to
rebuild it. (4.) As it is “fitly framed” into its foundation, if the devil has
forced it into Babylon, the foundation, too, is gone, for they are “fitly
framed together.”
VII “Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved.” —
Heb. 12:28. Greenfield, Liddell, Scott and Thayer define the Greek, here
rendered “moved,” “shaken,” and the Bible Union and the New Revision render it “shaken”
instead of “moved.” (1.) If this kingdom cannot be “shaken,” surely the church
cannot be forced from its foundation into Babylon. (2.) The church, therefore,
must ever be faithful to its husband — Church Perpetuity.
VIII. Christ is the King of His church. — Matt. 21:5. (1.) To destroy the kingdom is to destroy the king as king. (2.) If Christ's church has been destroyed, as king, Christ is destroyed, † (3.) But as His kingship in His church is essential to save a lost world, if for no other reason, He would preserve His church from apostasy. (4.) In no instance has a king ever lost his kingship, except by being too weak to save it. (5.) But Christ has “all power,” therefore, He will save His kingship by saving His church from apostasy.
IX. Christ is “High Priest” of His church. — Compare Heb. 10:21
with 1 Tim. 3:15. (1.) Christ's priesthood is essentially related to His
church. (2.) Therefore to destroy His church is to destroy His priest…
† To the attempt
to evade the force of this argument, by the fact that Saul became King, and
thence inferring God then was no longer King (1 Sam. 18:23) is a sufficient
reply.
…hood. (3.) Inasmuch as He can never permit His priesthood to be
destroyed, He can never permit apostasy to destroy His church.
X. Church Perpetuity grows out of the nature of the truth as the
instrument of the Spirit. The spirit through the truth preserved the apostolic
church. Unless the Spirit and the truth lose their power, they must thence
preserve the church from apostasy until Christ comes. The same cause, under
like conditions, will always produce the same effect. The truth is conditioned
for all time only by sinful nature and the unchangeable Spirit; therefore
Church Perpetuity.
XI. Church Perpetuity grows out of the mission of the Church. Her mission is to preach the gospel to the world, preserve the truth and the ordinances. The Scriptures make the churches the custodians of the ordinances and of all affairs of the kingdom of Christ, on earth. The Commission says, disciple, baptize and teach them to observe all the institutions of Christ — Matt. 28: 19, 20. (a) Those who make disciples are, naturally, the judges of the progress and the rights of the disciple, (b) Peter, on Pentecost, in that he commanded certain persons to be baptized, judged of their fitness for baptism. — Acts 2:38. (c) In asking “can any man forbid water,” Peter implied that water can be scripturally forbidden for persons who are unfit for baptism. — Acts 10:47, 48. (a?) In Philip saying to the eunuch, “if thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest,” he implied his right to refuse to baptize him, if he regarded him as not born again. Compare Acts 8:37, with 1 John 5:1.
Through the Apostles the churches were given the ordinances. (1.)
Compare Acts 16:4; 1 Cor. 11:2. (2.) The Church is “ the pillar and the ground
of the truth.” — 1 Tim. 3:15. (3.) In caring for the things of the kingdom, the
churches baptize into their membership — through their officers — those whom
they think are believers. “Him that is. weak in the faith receive.” — Rom.
14:1- (a) How receive if no authority to receive or reject? (b) Again, if the
Church is not the judge, how can it know whether the candidate is “weak” or
strong in the faith — or whether he has any faith at all? (c) Proslambanesthe
means, “to admit to one's society and fellowship.” — Thayer's, Robinson's and
the other Lexicons. Adam Clarke: “Receive him into your fellowship,”1
so Comp. Com., Doddridge, etc. See 1 Cor. 5:4-5, where the church excluded a
member and 2 Cor. 2:6-10, where she receives him back into her membership. (4.)
In caring for the interests of the kingdom the churches exclude members. — 1
Cor. 5:4-9; 2 Thess. 3:6; Rev. 2:14, 15, 20; 3:10; Matt. 18:17-19. (5.) The
church is to watch, guard the interest of the kingdom as a soldier, on guard,
guards what is under his care. Teereo — rendered “observe” in the Commission —
Matt. 28:20 — means to “watch, to observe attentively, to keep the eyes fixed
upon, to keep, to guard, e.g., a prisoner, a person arrested.…to keep back, to
keep in store, to reserve.”2 In the following passages it, and its
family, are rendered, “watched,” “keepers,” “keep,” “kept.” — Matt. 27:36;
28:4; Mark 7:9; John 2:10; 12:7; 17:12, 15; Acts 12:5,6; 16:23, 24:23; 25:4,
21; 2 Tim. 4:7; James 1:27. Thus the “keepers did shake;” “they watched him;” “Peter
was kept in prison;” “the keepers before the door kept the prison;” “charging
the jailer to keep them safely;” “commanded a centurion to keep Paul;” “that
Paul should be kept in Caesarea;” “I commanded him to be…
1
In loco.
2
Thayer's, Robinson's and other Lexicons.
…kept;” “keep yourselves in the love of God.” Thus the church, at
Philadelphia, is commended concerning the interests of the kingdom, in that “thou
didst keep my word.” — Rev. 3:8.
In 1 Cor. 11:2, katekete — “to hold down, to detain, to restrain,
to retain, hold firm in grasp, to maintain” — see the Lexs. — is used — “keep
the ordinances” — Revised Version, “holdfast.” Thus we see, as plainly as that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that as the Jews, under the Old Dispensation,
had the exclusive care of the word, the ceremonies, etc., so has the church
under the new; that the church, as a soldier, with its eyes fixed on the
interests of the kingdom, is to propagate, practice and guard them — as the
Commission reads, “teach them to guard all things whatsoever I have commanded
you.” As the Church, according to the word and the Spirit, obeys the Great
Commission, Jesus is with it. — Matt. 28:20. † If the church were necessary in
apostolic times it is necessary “alway, even unto the end of the world.” —
Matt. 28:20. Did not Christ provide for this necessity by providing for Church
Preservation? Or, was there, here, a little omission which Wesley, Calvin,
Campbell and other church builders provided for?
No doctrine of the Bible is more clearly revealed than is the doctrine of Church Perpetuity. As easily can one deny the atonement. Convince me there is no church today that has continued from the time of Christ, and you convince me the Bible is false. “Pedo-baptists” and Campbellites have admitted that Church Perpetuity is a…
† Inasmuch as
the objection against Restricted Commission is based on the presumption that
the church is not the custodian of New Testament institutions, the reader now
has. In a nut, shell. the key to the whole subject of “Close Communion.” No church
which believes itself a New Testament church can extend Its privileges to those
outside its membership— those who differ from It.
Bible doctrine, so clearly is it taught in the Bible. Prof.
Bannerman, a Presbyterian, says: “There are statements in Scripture that seem
distinctly to intimate that the Christian Church shall always continue to exist
in the world, notwithstanding that all is earthly and hostile around her. He
has founded it upon a rock; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”…That
Christ will be with His church 'alway, even unto the end of the world,'
ministering the needful support and grace for its permanent existence on earth,
we cannot doubt.”1 “He has left us a promise that the powers of evil
shall never finally prevail against or sweep it entirely away; and as belonging
essentially to the due administration of that kingdom, and forming a part of
it, the outward dispensation of the ordinances and worship in the church shall
never fail.”2 “The ministry, embracing an order of men to discharge
its duties, is a standing institution in the Christian Church since its first
establishment until now, and Leslie, in his Short Method with the Deists, has
fairly and justly appealed to the uninterrupted existence of the office as the
standing and permanent monument of the great primary facts of Christianity,
and, therefore, as demonstrative evidence of its truth.”3
Eld. J. M. Mathes, a leading Campbellite, adduces the recent origin
of the Methodist church as one evidence that it is not the church of Christ. He
says: “The M. E. church, as an organism is not old enough to be the church of
God.”4
“In the darkest ages of Popery, God never 'left Himself without a
witness.' It is true that from the rise…
1
The Church of Christ, by Bannerman, vol. I, p, 51.
2
Idem., p. 333.
3
Idem., p. 439.
4
Letters to Bishop Morris, p. 140.
…of that anti-Christian power till the dawn of the Reformation,
the people of Christ may be emphatically denominated a 'little flock,' yet
small as their number may appear to have been to the eye of man, and unable as
historians may be, to trace with accuracy the saints of the Most High, amidst
'a world lying in wickedness,' it cannot be doubted that even then, there was a
remnant, which kept the commandments of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ.
If God reserved to Himself 'seven thousand in Israel who had not bowed the knee
to Baal,' in the reign of idolatrous Ahab, can we suppose, that during any
preceding period. His Church has ceased to exist, or that His cause has utterly
perished?”1
The attempt is made, in two ways, to weaken the force of these
Scriptures for the Perpetuity of Churches. (1.) By resorting to the loose,
assumed meaning, of the word church, as not including organization. But in
reply (a) I have shown that ekklesia always indicates organization. (See the
first part of this chapter.) (b) No man can show where it ever excludes
organization.2 (c) There can be no reason why God — if there is such
a church — should care so much for a general, indefinable, intangible, “invisible”
body of men and women who have no definite places of meeting, no gospel and
gospel ordinances committed to it, no definite and tangible objects before it,
as to promise to preserve it, while He cared so little for a special,
definable, tangible, visible body of men and women, with definite places of
meeting, tangible objects before it, and gospel and gospel ordinances committed
to it, as to give it no promise of preservation! (d) The preaching, the
ordinances, the administration of discipline — all the work of the gospel —
having been committed,…
l
History Waldenses, Published by American Sunday School Union.
2
Ecclesiology, p. 102.
…not to a general, indefinable, intangible, invisible, body of men
and women, with no places of meeting, no objects before it, but to
organization, it is clear that, whatever may be promised to a non-organization,
the very mission and the very design of the church lead us to expect its preservation.
When Paul directed Timothy “how men ought to behave themselves in the house of
God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth,”
— 1 Tim. 3:15 — he spoke of organization with officers — “bishops” and “deacons”
— see the context, in verses 1-13. The election of officers, the receiving, the
discipline and exclusion of members, the keeping of the ordinances, —
everything necessary for the work of the gospel and the salvation of a lost
world was committed to “organized churches.” Compare Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts
1:26; 6:2, 3, 5; 10:47; 15:22; 16:4; Rom. 14:1; 1 Cor. 5:4, 5; 2 Cor. 2:6; 1
Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 3:6; Rev. 2:14; 3:10, in which it will be seen that the
churches elected their officers, received, excluded members, preached the
gospel, kept everything in order. In preaching, baptizing, receiving,
excluding, the churches are the powers through which the king of Zion governs,
extends His empire. A. Campbell, of the churches, says: “But as these
communities possess the oracles of God. …they are in the records of the kingdom
regarded as the only constitutional citizens of the kingdom.”1 Few
deny this necessity for the churches, until they come to meet the impregnable
stronghold of Bible promises of Church Perpetuity, when they disparage the
churches for their own general, intangible, invisible — I must say it —
nothing; and then they have Church Perpetuity promised to their pet — nothing.
Some of them will say: “Yes, we admit, that
1
Christian System, p. 172.
through all ages there were men and women who held Bible
principles, Bible doctrines, Bible ordinances, etc.” Yet, in the next breath,
they deny that these were churches! Just as if the life, evinced by the
maintenance of these “principles,” these “ordinances” and the “doctrine” would
not maintain the scriptural church organization! Where, today, find we men and
women who maintain Bible principles, Bible ordinances, Bible doctrine, etc.,
without scriptural organization? Indeed, what is such a, life in manifestation
but organization and the work of organization? The Scriptures represent the
organization as indispensable to the purity, the preservation of the doctrine,
the gospel and the ordinances. But, to rob the church of the promise of
preservation, it is denied that the church is necessary to such purposes. What
these deniers of Church Perpetuity think the church was instituted for, would
require more than the wisdom of Solomon to tell. (2.) It is claimed that the
apostasy of some churches proves the apostasy of all. Excuse me for reducing
the objection to a logical absurdity, in stating it. As well prove that a whole
army deserts from some having deserted. The Scriptures speak of some churches
being spewed out, their candlesticks being removed. The Romish church is only apostasy.
But the promises to the church and to the kingdom, as institutions, are, that “it
shall stand forever,” that “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”
The attempt is, also, made to weaken the statements of commentators,
etc., that the Scriptures promise Church Perpetuity. This is done in the same
way by which the attempt is made to weaken the direct statements of the
Scriptures, viz., by saying that these commentators mean the general,
indefinable, intangible, “invisible” body of men and women — church means men
and women — with no place of meeting, no objects before it — the “invisible
church.” To this I reply: Some of these writers have fallen into the error of
speaking of an “invisible church,” but (1.) I have shown that they speak of the
“visible” church as being preserved. For example, Adam Clark says, that the
church, of Eph. 5:23-29, is a church with ordinances. † (2.) But, if every one
of these writers understood these promises as applicable to only an ''invisible
church” it does not, in the least, weaken their testimony to these promises
guaranteeing Church Perpetuity. The promises of perpetuity to a church are one
thing; to what kind of a church is given .these promises is quite another. I
have not quoted any of these writers as defining the church to which the
promises were given; but I have quoted them all to prove that the promises
clearly leave no ground to doubt that perpetuity of some kind of a church if
promised. Having proved that the churches‡ of the New Testament are
organizations, to which are committed the gospel, the doctrine, the ordinances,
the discipline — that they are thus “the house of God, which is the church of
the living God, the PILLAR and GROUND of the Truth,” (1 Tim. 3:15.) whoever
denies that these are the church to which the promises of preservation are
given has his controversy not with me so much as with the King of Zion. § So
far as the use of the…
† An invisible church — if there is such a thing — has neither ordinances nor anything else. If any passage, in the Bible, seems to mean an “invisible” church, this passage is that one. The bad results of the “invisible” notion is seen in Cowboy Deanism, now in Texas, and elsewhere. On the plea that the church is made up of all believers, wherever they are and to whatever they are connected, it is calling our churches “ Babylon,” those who maintain them, “church idolaters,” etc , and is endeavoring to destroy them. This is but the Pedobaptist notion of an “invisible church” “gone to seed.” The “invisible” notion is the seed of ecclesiastical nihilism and anarchy.
‡ “The learned
Dr. Owen fully maintains, that in no approved writer, for two hundred years
after Christ, is mention made of any organized, visibly professing church,
except a local congregation of Christians.”— Church Members' Manual, p. 36, by
William Crowell.
§ That the reader may neither be confused nor think that I am contused I will again state that I use “ church,” in the singular, to denote the aggregate of churches. Just as it la used In Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22; 5:24; Col. 1:18. It is thus used by synecdoche, and I use “churches” for the Independent organizations- the literal churches, as in Acts 9:31; 15:41; 16:6; 19:37: Rom. 16:4, 16; 1 Cor. 7:17; 11:16; 14:33,34; 16:1, 19. To say “Baptist church” for all Baptist churches is, therefore, correct, so is it to say Baptist churches.
…testimony of these writers is concerned, it matters not, if these
writers believed the churches of the New Testament are Romish or Mormon
churches. They agree that whatever the churches of the New Testament are, they
are promised Church Perpetuity. And I have proved them all organizations.
I will close this argument with the testimony of one Methodist and
two Presbyterian scholars.
Adam Clarke: “The church of the living God. The assembly in which
God lives and works, each number of which is a living stone, all of whom,
properly united among themselves,” — this is organization, — “grow up into a holy
temple in the Lord.”1
Barnes, Presbyterian: “Thus it is with the church. It is entrusted
with the business of maintaining the truth, of defending it from the assaults
of error, and of transmitting it to future times. The truth is, in fact, upheld
in the world by the church. The people of the world feel no interest in
defending it, and it is to the Church of Christ that it is owing that it is
preserved and transmitted from age to age …The stability of the truth on earth
is dependent on the church …Other systems of religion are swept away; other
opinions change; other forms of doctrine vanish; but the knowledge of the great
system of redemption is preserved on earth unshaken, because the church is
preserved and its foundations can not be moved. As certainly as the church
continues to live, so certain will it be that the truth of God will be
perpetuated in the world.”2
1
Com. on 1 Timothy, 3:15.
2
On 1 Timothy 3:15, in “Old Landmarkism,” p. 44.
Again, says Bannerman: “The visible church is Christ's kingdom;
and the administration of government, ordinance, and discipline within it, is
but a part of that administration by which He rules over His people. That
kingdom may at different times be more or less manifest to the outward eye and
more or less conspicuous in the view of men. But He has left us a promise that
the powers of evil shall never finally prevail against it or sweep it entirely
away; and, as belonging essentially to a due administration of that kingdom,
and forming a part of it, the outward dispensation of ordinances and worship in
the Church shall never fail. * * * There are express announcements in
Scripture, warranting us to assert that the various institutions and rites that
make up the outward provision of government, worship, ordinance, and discipline
in the Church of Christ, should be continued to the end of the world.”1
“The ministry, embracing an order of men to discharge its duties, is a standing institution in the Christian church, since its first establishment until now; and Leslie, in his Short Method with the Deists, has fairly and justly appealed to the uninterrupted existence of the office as a standing and permanent monument of the great primary facts of Christianity, and as therefore demonstrative evidence of its truth. …There are a number of Scripture declarations of the promises, of the permanence and perpetuity of a ministry in the church, which have been appropriated and perverted by the advocates of apostolic succession into arguments in favor of the doctrine. …In short, most of those Scripture statements, which afford us warrant to say that there shall be a church always on this earth, and that the office of minister and pastor is a standing appointment…
l
Bannerman's Church of Christ, vol. 1, pp. 332, 333.
…in the church, have been pressed into the service of the theory
that an apostolical succession in the line of each individual minister is
essential to the validity of the ministerial title, † and, as most, if not all,
the advocates hold essential also the existence of a church at all. Now, with
regard to such statements of Scripture, it may readily be admitted — nay, it is
to be strenuously affirmed — that they demonstrate this much, that a Church of
Christ, more or less visible, is always to exist on the earth; but this conclusion
has nothing to do with apostolic succession in the church. Further still, many
of these texts may be held as demonstrating that the office of the ministry is
a standing and permanent one in the church. …There are not a few statements in
Scripture that justify us in believing that the office of the ministry in the
church can never, as an office, become extinct; that an order of men set apart
to its public duties can never, as an order, be interrupted and come to an end,
so long as the church itself endures.”1
Prof. Bannerman, feeling the force of this, against the Presbyterian church, tries to evade it by a resort to the notion of a “universal Christian society, and in all the branches of the Christian church.” But this does not weaken the force of the quoted statements. How significantly, then, is every honest scholar bound to voice the Lord's statement: “Upon this rock I will build, my church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” — Matt. 16:18.
XII. “Unto Him be glory in the church, by Jesus Christ, throughout
all ages, world without end.” — Eph. 3:21…
† Advocates for receiving persons into our churches, on alien immersions, have fallen into the Romanist and Episcopal error; for they claim that we can have no proof of a regularly constituted ministry until we can trace “every minister's pedigree back to apostolic times!” Just as if a Scriptural Church is not the authority to baptize !
1
Idem, pp. 439, 442.
….By her fulfilling the great commission — her godly life — the church perpetuates and extends Christ's glory. Many, in our age, rather reverse this by having this glory out of the church. But this makes His glory dependent on the church. As this glory is “in the church throughout all ages, world without end,” the perpetuity of the church is assured.
The Scriptures more than justify the
lines of Newton:
“ Glorious things of thee are
spoken,
Zion, city of our God;
He whose word cannot be broken,
Formed thee for His own abode.
Lord, thy Church is still thy
dwelling,
Still is precious in thy sight,
Judah's temple for excelling,
Beaming with the gospel's light.
On the Rock of Ages founded,
What can shake her sure repose?
With salvation's walls surrounded,
She can smile at all her foes.”
Or of Kelley:
“Zion stands with hills surrounded,
Zion kept by power divine;
All her foes shall be confounded,
Though the world in arms combine;
Happy Zion,
What a favored lot is thine.
In the furnace God may prove thee,
Thence to bring thee forth more
bright,
But can never cease to love thee;
Thou art precious in His sight;
God is with thee;
God, thine everlasting life.”
Thus poets
join scriptural expositors in declaring church preservation a fundamental Bible
doctrine.
Having proved that the church should never apostatize is a
fundamental Bible doctrine, I pass…
To notice that it is a fundamental infidel doctrine that it should
apostatize.
A few years ago I met in debate a Spiritist, who affirmed, as a
proposition, that the church has apostatized. So Mormonism teaches. Swedenborg
says of the church: “Its condition may be compared with a ship, laden with
merchandise, of the greatest value, which, as soon as it got out of the harbor,
was immediately tossed about with a tempest, and presently being wrecked in the
sea, sinks to the bottom.”1
Says Buckle: “The new religion was corrupted by old follies,
…until after a lapse of a few generations, Christianity exhibited so grotesque
and hideous a form that its best features were lost, and the lineaments of its
earlier loveliness were altogether destroyed.”2
Infidels, of the present, seeing that the church yet stands, are preaching its apostasy. Voltaire said the church would be extinct before A. D. 1800. Robert Ingersoll, and every infidel lecturer and writer, proclaim the doctrine of the apostasy. The Devil has believed in and worked for church apostasy ever since its birth. Christ said: “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against” the church; the combined powers of hell have ever said “they shall” and “that they have prevailed against it.” With which of these parties do you, my dear reader, agree? Remember, you cannot evade the question, by resorting to the assumption of an “invisible” church; for we have seen (a) that the only church which the New Testament speaks of is a local organization, and…
l
True Christian Religion, p. 269.
2
Buckle's, History of Civilization, vol. 1, p. 183.
…(b) if there were “invisible” churches, the promise of
preservation is given to the “visible.”
Modern churches are essentially based on the infidel
assumption, viz., the apostasy, harlotry of the blessed Bride or Church of
Christ.
A. wife is “off on a visit.” To steal the wife's place, a woman
circulates the report that the wife has been lost at sea. The woman knows this
report is necessary to make room for her. So, every new sect builder and new
sect — and sects now number hundreds — knowing there is no room for another
Bride of Christy while the first is alive or true to Him, proclaim the death,
or the unfaithfulness of His first Bride. Bangs, one of the earliest Methodist
writers, said: “That the state of society was such in Great Britain at the time
Wesley arose as to call, in most imperious language, for a Reformation, no one,
at all acquainted with those times, I presume, will pretend to question.”1
Again: “Methodism arose from the necessity of the times.”2 Mr. Bangs
omitted telling his readers that the very church — the Episcopal — that then
ruled Britain, was a church which originated with the bold assumptions of the
apostasy or harlotry of the Bride of Christ, and of the necessity of a “reformation.”
Porter, another standard Methodist writer: “More than a thousand
years the church was sunk in the deepest ignorance and corruption, so that it
is exceedingly doubtful whether there was a valid bishop on earth.”3
“The church was dead.”4 A sect, calling themselves “Bible Christians”
— wonder if the Campbellites cannot get a suggestion from this name, as to what
to call their church? — says: “In subsequent times, when reformation…
1
Bangs' Original Church, p. 103.
2
Idem, p. 302.
3
Compendium of Methodism, p. 329.
4
Idem, p. 337,
…was needed, a Luther, a Calvin, a Melancthon and others have been
raised up, etc. …Under Providence” — by the way, these sect builders all talk
of a Providential call, but no one of them recognizes the others' call as
sufficiently doing the work for which they were called, and none of them shows
us what wonderful Providence called them! — “the body, known by the appellation
of Bible Christians, began to assume an external, visible existence as a
church, about the year 1800, principally through the labors of Rev. William
Cowherd.”1 Of the German Seventh Day Baptists (?), William M.
Fahnestock, M.D., of that sect, says: “About the year 1694 a controversy arose
in the Protestant churches of Germany and Holland in which vigorous attempts
were made to reform some of the errors of the church …In the year 1708,
Alexander Mack …and seven others, in Schwartzenau, Germany, began to examine
carefully and impartially the doctrines of the New Testament, and to ascertain
what are the obligations imposed on Christians; determined to lay aside all
preconceived” — the special plea of Campbellism — “opinions and traditional
observances. The result of their inquiries terminated in the formation of the
society, now called the Dunkers, or First Day German Baptists.”2 Of
a sect called “The Free Communion Baptists” (?), Rev. A. D. Williams, one of
its ministers, writes: “At the close of the seventeenth century two pernicious
errors had crept into ecclesiastical matters in some parts of New England.” As
a result: “During the first-half of the eighteenth century a number of these
societies were formed in Rhode Island and Connecticut.”3
1
Religious Denominations, p. 123.
2
Religious Denominations, p. 109.
Rev. Porter S. Burbank, of the “Free Will Baptists” (?), writes: “Generally
there was but one Baptist denomination in America till the origin of the Free
Will Baptists, a little more than sixty years ago. …The Free Will Baptist
connection in North America commenced A. D. 1780, in which year its first
church was organized.” Then he proceeds to justify its organization, by such
statements as: “Churches were in a lax state of discipline, and much of the
preaching was little else than dull, moral essays, or prosy disquisitions on
abstract doctrines.”1 John Winebrenner, the founder of the
Winebrenarians, who call themselves “The Church of God” — a suggestion for the
Campbellites as that name is as near as any name, which the Bible calls the
church, nearer than most of the names they have given their church — says: “We
shall accordingly notice…that religious community, or body of believers, who
profess to have come out from all human and unscriptural organizations” — just
what the Campbellite church professes — “who have fallen hack upon original
grounds, and who wish, therefore, to be called by no other distinctive name,
collectively taken, than the Church of God.” So he says: “In October, 1830,”
some persons “met together” and organized the “Church of God.”2 Of
course, though Mr. Winebrenner founded his church, like A. Campbell, he says it
was originated in the first century! In a tract, published by the “Seventh Day
Adventists,” at Battle Creek, Mich., — a sect which is doing far more than
Ingersoll to introduce Sabbath desecration and materialism — entitled “The
Seventh Day Adventist: a brief sketch of their origin, progress and principles,”
we read: “Our field of inquiry leads us back…
l
Idem, pp. 74,75.
2
Idem, p. 172.
…only to the great advent movement of 1840-'44. Respecting that
movement, it is presumed that the public are more or less informed; but they
may not be so well aware of the causes which have led since that time to the
rise of a class of people calling themselves Seventh Day Adventists.”1
Then, on the assumption of all things needing reforming, it says: “A Seventh
Day Baptist sister, Mrs. Rachel D. Preston, from the State of New York, moved
to Washington, N. H., where there was a church of Adventists. From them she
received the doctrine of the soon-coming of Christ, and in return instructed
them in reference to the claims of the fourth commandment in the Decalogue.
This was in 1844. Nearly that whole church immediately commenced the observance
of the seventh day, and thus have the honor of being the first Seventh Day
Adventist Church in America.”2
Thus, we see how sects arise, how Christians are divided, how the
world is led into infidelity by sectarianism. THE INFIDEL DOCTRINE, THAT THE
BLESSED BRIDE OF CHRIST IS DEAD, OR HAS BEEN UNFAITHFUL TO HIM, IS THE BASIS,
THE LICENSE OF THE WHOLE OF THE SECTARIAN TROUBLE. Once it is admitted, every
one, good or bad, who becomes offended, and who can get a few followers, can
get up a “new church,” so on ad infinitum. †
Thus, here comes Alexander Campbell, like all the other sect founders, claiming to reform the church, to “get back to the Bible,” etc. A. Campbell says that he originated the Campbellite church from ''a deep and an abiding impression that the power, the consolations and joys — the holiness and happiness of Christ's religion were…
† These sects,
in the same breath, profess that “to have existed from the apostolic age is not
necessary,” then exhaust their ingenuity in “refuting Baptists,” by attempting
to prove them of modern origin!! Why this. If age is not necessary to a
church???
1
Page l.
2
Idem, p. 5.
…lost in the forms and ceremonies, in the speculations and conjectures,
in the feuds and bickerings of sects and schisms.”1 †
† See “Gospel In Water or Campbellism,” p. 620; cloth bound, price, $2.00, by the author of this book. It Is the most thorough refutation of Campbellism ever published and is recommended by Dr. John A. Broadus, Dr. Angus, of London, and many of our ablest scholars.
l
Christian System, p. 6.