As the darkest hour is said to be just before day, so it proved in this case. In the darkest hour of an apostate church there dawned the morning of a brighter day. There had been intimations of the approaching day for a long time. Here and there a morning star shone out in the darkness and heralded the coming dawn. It is a part of the divine philosophy of things that falsehood and error, reaching a climax of badness, hasten their own downfall. There is an inherent weakness and source of decay in all false and corrupt systems. The moral sentiment of the best men of the world had been rising in revolt against the abuses of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and its corrupt teaching. The spirit of protest was in the air. It needed only a strong personality, imbued with the spirit of reform, to focalize the best religious sentiment of the times, rally about it the elements of reform which had long been in preparation, to introduce the new era. Then came Luther, who proved to be the virile and inspiring personality needed to concentrate the forces of reform and hurl them with tremendous energy against the abuses and errors, both in doctrine and life, of the corrupt church. His coming was no accident. The reform of which he was the leader was inevitable. It was not born out of due time. Like all God's great movements it came "in the fulness of time"--came because it had to come if God's purposes were to be fulfilled in the world.
Protestantism, under Luther's titanic blows, was the dawn of religious liberty after the long night of ecclesiastical despotism. While the iron-hearted reformer refuted many errors in doctrine and denounced with great boldness the moral corruptions which had disgraced the church, his most important contribution to religious reformation was his vigorous assertion of the rights of conscience and the liberty of each believer to think for himself and to act in harmony with his own convictions of duty, holding himself directly accountable to God, and not to priest, bishop, or pope. True, Luther was not always consistent with this principle of individual liberty in allowing to others the same right which he claimed for himself, but when he had succeeded in breaking off the shackles of Rome and in sowing the seeds of religious liberty in the minds and hearts of the people, no inconsistent act of his could prevent the exercise of the sovereign right of freedom of thought and action of an emancipated people. As often happens, this newly-found liberty was abused. Individualism ran to an extreme. On the sacred altar of liberty unity was sacrificed. Better, a thousand times, religious liberty, with its resulting divisions, than the unity of despotism in which human thought was bound in fetters, and in which corruption prevailed.
But one can but regret that Luther saw no way by which liberty and unity could both be conserved. It is not given to any one man, however, be he ever so great, to compass with his finite mind the whole truth as it is revealed in Jesus Christ. "We know in part, and we prophesy in part." Luther never escaped the prevalent idea of the time concerning the union of Church and State. He did not hesitate to use force in carrying forward his reformation. He practiced the shrewdest diplomacy in winning the adhesion of kings and potentates to his cause. He did not object to the Romish creed on the principle that it was a usurpation of authority in binding men where God had left them free, but only on the ground that it contained errors which he believed should be eliminated. He felt it, therefore, perfectly consistent with his reformation to assist in formulating a new creed which in its turn should become a bond of union and a test of fellowship. If only he had been tall enough to see clear over the heads of popes and councils and all the bloody pages of ecclesiastical history, back to the apostolic age, and to urge the kind of union that prevailed in that period, how many confusing chapters of denominational strifes and divisions might have been avoided! But perhaps the world was not ready at that time to return to New Testament Christianity. Other reformers and reformations must come after Luther to prepare even the lovers of Christ to return to the simplicity and unity of the early Church. But let us not fail to give Luther credit for the great and heroic work which has left its impress upon all subsequent ages. His aim, let us not doubt, was to build the Church in conformity with the Scriptures, to which he constantly made his appeal. It is easy for us, living in the light of a brighter and better day, to see imperfections in the work of the great reformers whom God has used as instruments for the accomplishment of needed reformations in their day. But we do well to remember that we are the "heirs of all the ages," heirs of the religious light and liberty which have come through the self-sacrificing labors and toils of these mighty men of God.
Once the banner of religious liberty was lifted to the breeze and men felt that they could express their convictions without fear of incarceration in prison, or death, all kinds of men began to give expression to all kinds of opinions concerning subjects religious and ecclesiastical, and, strange to say, to urge these opinions and speculations with all the dogmatism and air of infallibility that had marked the utterances of the popes themselves! The student of ecclesiastical history will recall the various types of anabaptists and anti-pedobaptists which promulgated their peculiar doctrines, and made converts, and the differences which arose between Luther and many of his coadjutors, and a host of theological champions who arose in that time to advocate their respective theories which they regarded as of primary importance. All this, and much else that followed in later years, was the inevitable result of placing the emphasis on the intellectual side of Christianity, and the failure to make the proper distinction between faith and theology. It was all a vain effort to make men think alike on speculative questions which had nothing to do with the life or character of men. With all of Luther's intellectual power, he never saw this distinction, so vital to the unity and welfare of the Church. Nor did he ever see clearly that the State had one realm and the Church another, and that these were to be kept distinct and separate; and that force had no legitimate place in the religion of Him who was "meek and lowly in heart," and whose life and doctrine were directly opposed to any such method of extending his kingdom.
But, again, we must remind ourselves that it was not given to Luther, nor to the men of his time, to bring the Church all the way from its Babylonish captivity to its ancient and apostolic heritage of freedom and unity. Enough for him and his co-adjutors that, with clear vision and heroic courage, they were able to unchain the Bible, reassert the principle of Christian liberty, and inaugurate a movement which others, in after years, should take up and carry forward to a goal that is not even yet realized. Jesus tells us that the same law prevails in the spiritual realm that we see in operation in the physical world--"First the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear."[14]
Following the reformation of Luther, and partly contemporaneous with it, were the reformatory movements of Zwingli, in Switzerland, and of Calvin, in Geneva. These later reformers profited, of course, by the labors of Luther, and made a still further advance in several respects toward evangelical doctrine as it is held by the best thought of to-day. They escaped some of the evils and false conceptions which continued to cleave to Luther after his break with the Roman church, but they were both more or less enslaved by the idea that the fagot and the sword were legitimate weapons with which to advance that kingdom of which it was declared by its Founder that it is "not of this world," else would his subjects fight for him. Zwingli apprehended more clearly than Luther the meaning and place of the two ordinances in Christianity, and was more influenced than his great contemporary by the humanistic element growing out of the Renaissance. Calvin was undoubtedly one of the great thinkers of the Church and left an indelible impress both upon its doctrine and polity. His teaching proved to be the most virile and persistent form of Protestant thought springing out of that century. It spread throughout France, was transplanted thence to Scotland through the labors of John Knox, exerted a strong influence in the Reformation in England, took its place beside Lutheranism even in Germany, was puissant in the redemption of the Netherlands from the persecuting power of Roman Catholicism, and, being transplanted to the New World, has exerted a widespread and commanding influence in the religious thought and life of America. And yet it was not given to John Calvin and his brave coadjutors to grapple successfully with the problem of Christian union. The authoritative doctrinal creed has always held a high place in the religious scheme of the Reformed churches, whether in the Old or the New World, and while the spirit of the times and the growth of religious liberty have made impossible the use of the fagot, the sword, and the prison, to enforce theological uniformity, the creed of Calvin, modified somewhat by the broader and sweeter spirit which now pervades the Church, is still regarded by its adherents as an essential test of doctrinal soundness, and an adequate basis of ecclesiastical life.
The religious movement known in the Old World as Independency, may be considered as a divergence from the Presbyterian movement or that of the Reformed churches under the leadership of John Calvin, in the matter of church government. It strongly emphasized the independence of the local congregation and the movement has come to be known, especially in this country, as Congregationalism. It had its origin in the Reformation age, and in doctrine it was in the beginning identical with the Reformed churches, that is to say, Calvinistic. In its subsequent development, however, it has greatly modified the doctrine of Calvin, and does not acknowledge the authority of any general creed, holding to the right of each congregation to formulate its own creed. It has laid great emphasis upon education, and the institutions of learning which it has planted are among the foremost in this country, and through these it has exerted a widespread influence, not only upon the thought of the Church, but upon the life of the Nation. While its leading representatives in modern times are favorable to the cause of Christian unity, the movement as such, has never devoted itself to the solution of the problem of unity, though it has been an important factor in preparing the way for such unification,
Before the middle of the eighteenth century the Reformation in England sadly needed reforming. When the spirit of formalism, religious apathy and worldliness prevailed to an alarming extent, and the Church was losing its witnessing power to the truth of Christianity, John Wesley, who graduated from Oxford College in the year 1726, soon afterward, in connection with his brother Charles, began those religious associations from which sprang the great, widespread movement known as Methodism. This movement, like that of Luther and Calvin, was an effort to bring the Church into closer conformity with the Scriptures, and to make it more like the Church which the Master had established. It laid especial emphasis upon the spiritual power of Christianity, as an internal force, the direct witness of the Spirit, and holiness of life. It was an emphasis, too, that was greatly needed in those days of spiritual coldness and formality, and the necessity for it has not ceased in our own day. It, too, was transplanted into the New World and has been a mighty factor in the religious life of this country. But great and important as was the work of Wesley, and of the movement to which his labors gave birth, it was not given to him to closely grapple with the problem of Christian unity. His mission lay in another field, but it was performing an important preparatory work in its promotion of vital godliness. John Wesley was less a theological genius than he was a great practical organizer and Christian statesman, dealing with practical problems of administration and the utilization of religious forces. His deep religious experience, and the emphasis he gave to the truth that Christianity must bear witness to itself in the individual heart and life, bearing the fruit of the Spirit, together with the other qualities mentioned, made him a mighty factor in the religious life of the world, since his time.
We need not enter here into the mooted; question of the origin of that splendid body of Christian people known as Baptists, whose American origin, at least, dates back to the days of Roger Williams. We have already seen that back in the days of Luther, and no doubt long before his day, there were those who stood for believers' baptism, for liberty of conscience, and against the usurpations of authority over individual liberty by either the Church or State. No doubt these views were firmly held, and quietly spread among the people, though they had little opportunity of flourishing under the rule of the State Church in the Old World, when dissenters were regarded as traitors. No one man stands for this movement, but it has had a succession of great leaders, both in Europe and America, and has been a mighty bulwark through the centuries for religious liberty, for a regenerated church membership, for believers' baptism, and for congregational autonomy.
It is unnecessary to deal with the sub-divisions, which unfortunately have broken up these several Protestant bodies into separate parties and denominations, between which there has existed often a more bitter feeling than between more remotely separated bodies. Enough has been said to show that the era of Protestantism has unfortunately been an era of division and subdivision. It should be borne in mind, however, that the leading Protestant movements came into existence as protests against the tyranny and corruptions of an apostate Church and are the results of sincere and earnest efforts to establish a purer faith and doctrine, and to correct existing abuses. This fact is sometimes overlooked when these movements for religious reform are characterized as the "daughters of the Mother of Harlots." This characterization of the great Protestant bodies of our time ignores history and fact in the interest of partisan zeal. Men and women of heroic faith and courage went to the stake, to the guillotine and to the flames because of their loyalty to Jesus Christ, and their zeal in behalf of religious reform. Heroes like Wickliffe, Huss, Luther, Melancthon, Zwingli, Calvin, Wesley and a great host whose names are less known to fame, but whose faith and devotion to God were not less true, have lived, and wrought, and suffered persecution, and many of them death, in behalf of religious freedom and a truer faith, and we to-day have entered into the inheritance which they have left us. It is a species of ingratitude, of which no Christian ought to be guilty, to disregard the labors and sacrifices of these heroes of faith whose names are recorded in the Book of Life. It is to be false to history and to fact to speak of these great Protestant movements, born out of the travail of soul of mighty men of God, seeking to purify the Church in doctrine and life, as "daughters of the Mother of Harlots."
Had there been no Luther there probably would have been no Calvin, and had there been no Luther and Calvin there would have been no John Knox or John Wesley. And had it not been for this illustrious line of reformers, consecrating their genius, their talent, their lives, to the cause of religious reformation, there had been no reformation of the nineteenth century, led by such men as the Campbells, and Stone, and followed by a long and saintly line of heroes and heroines willing to sacrifice all for the sake of Christ and his truth. We shall never recognize our own religious movement in its true relation to others which have preceded it until we see these others in their true historic setting, and are able to recognize our infinite indebtedness to them for what they accomplished in behalf of religious freedom and truth. It will mark a distinct gain in historical knowledge and in Christian spirit and humility, when we shall cease to speak of our fellow-laborers in behalf of Christian reform as mere "sects" with all the opprobrium attaching to the New Testament use of the term, as some do, while we claim for ourselves the right and title of Churches of Christ. This manifestation of high churchism does not look any better when it crops out among us than it does when it is set forth by the older and more aristocratic bodies which claim a direct succession from the apostles. Such exclusiveness is not only contrary to the free spirit of our time, but it is out of harmony with the spirit and teaching of him whose disciples we claim to be. One of the objects of this series of studies will have been accomplished if it shall help us all to a point of view that will enable us to see our true relation to other religious movements, and to have in consequence a better appreciation of the great work to which God has called us.
Not one of these movements, however, as we have seen, confronted the problem of a divided Church, nor did one of them set itself the task of seeking a basis of unity upon which all could stand together in a common fellowship, even as our Master prayed. Each of them saw evils to be remedied and errors to be corrected, and set itself to the work of reformation, and each of them, let it be said in truth and justice, has made a distinct contribution to the return of the Church from its Romish captivity to its original purity and conformity to Scriptural rule. There were other problems to be solved before that of Christian unity could be taken up, and with these the Lutheran, Calvinian and Wesleyan Reformations concerned themselves.
It must not be supposed that, in the spirit of controversy and contention which followed the Reformation of the sixteenth century and other later reformatory movements, there were no voices lifted in behalf of unity. The wonder is that, Christian unity being so imbedded in the very spirit and aim, of Christianity, these voices were not more numerous and did not meet with a readier response from the Church. Our space will permit us to mention only a few of the most prominent and pronounced advocates of union in post-reformation times, and for most of the facts herein stated we are indebted to a lecture by the Rev, John F. Hurst, D. D., LL. D., Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on "The Irenic Movements Since the Reformation," which forms a chapter in a book entitled "Church Unity."[15]
Melanchthon, who was the one irenic spirit of the Reformation, seems to have transmitted some of his spirit as well as his theology to George Calixtus, professor in the University of Halmstadt, who became the earliest apostle of Christian union. Himself a Lutheran, by his travels and mingling with other Protestants, he attained to a breadth of view not shared by many religious teachers of his time. His aim was to bring about union between the Lutheran and Reformed Churches. He contended that the points on which they differed were insignificant as compared with the great fundamentals on which they were agreed. Of course he was denounced and ridiculed by the sectarians of his time, some of whom identified him with the number of the beast in the Apocalypse. As our historian remarks, "It was a militant age, and the peacemaker's role was not popular."
The theological school of Frankfort-on-the-Oder, was a center of a movement in behalf of peace and unity. We are indebted to this Frankfort group of peace advocates for giving publicity as to the now familiar statement of Rupertus Meldenius: "In necessary things unity, in things indifferent liberty, in all charity." Richard Baxter, himself an advocate of Christian union in his time, had also quoted this sentence in his work on Christian union. Bishop Hurst says that "John Durie was the greatest peacemaker of the seventeenth century." Durie devoted himself with singleness of aim to bringing about the union of Christians. He interceded with kings and parliaments, receiving aid from them and from many of the leading spirits of his time, in his work. Some of the principles which he advocated, as given in the lecture referred to, are as follows:
"(1) A full body of practical divinity, which, instead of the ordinary philosophical jangling school divinity, might be proposed to all those who seeke the truth which is after godlinesse.
"(2) To abolish the names of parties, as presbyterial, prelatical, congregational, etc., and to be called Reformed Christians of England, Scotland, France, Germany, etc.
"(3) To discountenance controversial writings by private persons.
"(4) It is the mind of Christ that his servants in all matters merely circumstantiall by him not determined should be left free to follow their own light, as it may be offered, or arise unto them, from the general rules of edification and not constrained by an implicit faith to follow the dictates of other men."
It is interesting to notice the striking similarity of some of these statements with the principles enunciated in "The Declaration and Address" of Thomas Campbell, early in the nineteenth century. It was too early, however, for these principles to meet with any general acceptance, and this earnest advocate of Christian union died in 1680 without seeing his hopes realized.
Hugo Grotius, a contemporary of Calixtus, was also an advocate of union, but his aim especially was to reconcile Protestants to the mother Church, and he probably would have sacrificed truth for the sake of unity.
John Owen who has been called "the greatest of the Puritan divines, the Nestor of the Congregationalists," gave his voice for union and laid down a liberal platform. Among some of the noble sentences are the following: "Wherever there is a man, or a body of men, who are united to him by a living faith and are keeping his commandments, he or they are in communion with the Church of God." "He belongs to the Church catholic who is united to Christ by the spirit, and none other." As to the method of union he stated this truth which is, perhaps, more obvious now after the experience of centuries than when he uttered it: "But I verily believe that when God shall accomplish it (union), it will be the effect of love and not the cause of love."
We have already referred to Baxter as an advocate of Christian union. We can not refrain from quoting here his noble appeal to the Christians of his day in behalf of union:
"Why, sirs, have not Independents, Presbyterians, Episcopal, etc., one God, one Christ, one Spirit, one Creed, one Scripture, one hope of everlasting life? Are our disagreements so great that we may not live together in love, and close in fraternal union and unity? Are we not of one religion? Do we differ in fundamentals or substantials? Will our conscience worry us? Will not posterity curse us if by our divisions we betray the gospel into the hands of the enemies? And if by our mutual envyings and jealousies and perverse zeal for our several conceits, we should keep open the breach for all heresies and wickedness to enter, and make a prey for our own poor people's souls; Brethren, you see other bonds are loosed; Satan will make his advantage of these daises of licentiousness. Let us straighten the bond of Christian unity and love, and help each other against the powers of hell, and join our forces against one common enemy."
In 1836 Abraham Van Dyke, Esq., published a book entitled, "Christian Union; or an Argument for the Abolition of Sects," which provoked opposition from leaders in the Episcopal Church, and also in the Presbyterian Church. The book and the discussion it provoked was a contribution to the cause of Christian unity.
We need only refer to the local union movements within certain denominational families which are recent enough to be familiar to our readers. The union effected in Scotland and among the Methodist Churches of Canada and Presbyterian Churches of this country and other movements of the same character which are now in process of being accomplished, are sufficient to show us that a new spirit has entered into the Church, and that the centripetal forces are overcoming the centrifugal. The movement of Abner Jones in New England and of John O'Kelly in the South, about the beginning of the last century, seeking to promote a closer union among Christians, together with the movements of Stone and the Campbells to be hereafter noticed more fully, and of which Bishop Hurst does not seem to have heard, were but parts of a widespread cosmic movement toward union which we can not doubt is the product of the Spirit of God within the hearts of His people. All of these movements contributed something to the end they sought to accomplish and helped to prepare the way for the fuller realization of the ideal which they had before them. But they were in the main individual movements, and partly because of the times in which these men lived, and the conditions under which they wrought, and, partly because of the impracticable character of their respective platforms of unity, they affected but slightly the religious thought and life of their day. We are now to consider a movement in behalf of union whose growth has been one of the most striking phenomena in modern religious history, and whose plea for unity has profoundly affected the thought and feeling of the present time.
Endnotes:
15 Scribners Sons, New York. [back]