HE Disciples of Christ enjoy the unique distinction of having been declared orthodox by a court decision. They were tried by a court in Northern Indiana and declared free from heresy. It is the only case of this kind in this country that is on record.

      The following is the closing speech by the attorney for the defense.

      Gentlemen--You have committed to your trust a case of uncommon importance. Never before in the history of juries has a panel been called upon to decide the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of a religious body of people. That such a thing is possible under the eaves of the Twentieth Century, confirms it that something is strangely wrong in the religious world. I believe you are possessed of religious prejudices. Most men are. But when you ascended those steps into that box, you took your seats above bias, in the realm of exact justice, and you will a true verdict give, in the fear of God, and in the love of his truth, according to the testimony rendered.

      A Methodist Protestant body, known as the Salem [191] Church, in this county of Noble, and State of Indiana, and situated in the county, four miles from Ligonier, owned a church building that was rotting, and a membership that was dying. They resolved to build a new meeting-house. The membership being unable for the task, asked assistance of the community. Friends proffered to assist, provided the house be made free to other religious people. Whereupon it was inserted in the subscription papers for the house, as follows, to-wit: "When the said house is not in use by the Methodist Protestant congregation in its regular worship, then the said house shall be open and free to the services of all other orthodox denominations." Three thousand dollars was raised thereon, fourteen hundred dollars of which came from persons not members of the Methodist Protestant Church. Of themselves they raised by one hundred dollars over half.

      The evidence shows that, after the house was built, J. H. Edwards, of Ligonier, pastor of the Christian Church, preached in it once a month for nearly a year; he occupied it on Sunday afternoons, at three o'clock, a most difficult hour to obtain a bearing; and that he always had good attention and fine audiences. It has also been disclosed that the audiences of the Rev. Mr. Post, the Salem pastor, were neither good nor fine, and that for the past year they have been working on the problem of a further reduction.

      Last January the Trustees of Salem Chapel notified [192] Mr. Edwards that he could no longer use "their" house, "except on funeral occasions." A member of the Protestant Church, and a gentleman not a member of any church, both, however, on the subscription paper, prayed the Court for a mandamus requiring the doors of Salem Chapel to be opened to J. H. Edwards and his congregation.

      The Christian Church did not bring this action. Strangers brought it. We would not be known in this case, more than any other religious body, but the defense, in their answer to the complaint, charged that the Christian Church, the Church of Christ, of which J. H. Edwards is a member, was unorthodox in Christian religion, and preached and practiced things not lawful by the Word of God. Their answer makes the orthodoxy of the Christian Church the issue in action. This brings us to the lead in this trial, by casting the burden of proof on us. We are compelled to establish our orthodoxy. We take up the lead in this prosecution with considerable earnestness. We have much at stake. The verdict here rendered will not affect the Protestant Church to any great extent. They are a fragment that has flown off from the Methodist body in its natural revolutions. They have but seventy thousand members in the world, a less number than we have in this State of Indiana alone. They are reckoned as fractions in religious statistics. Under the present aggregating tendencies of religious bodies, they will be absorbed and taken finally out of existence by some larger [193] party within a few years; which is as it should be, for they have never had the least excuse for an existence beyond their plea for lay representation. To us, however, your finding is a matter of large consequence. Our orthodoxy is on trial. Our seven hundred thousand members will go forth from this house "legally" orthodox, which will be a strength to the divine plea of the "Bible alone," so just in its character, and so valuable an ally in our mission that you will never be able to appreciate the good you have done for the story of the cross; or we shall go forth as heterodox, as unworthy of his high name whom we worship. The baneful shadow of such a verdict would not cease to the ends of the earth, and would hover about the doors of our houses of worship with awful significance.

      As we assert the orthodoxy of the Christian Church, and the defense denies it, the burden of the proof rests with us. Where shall we find the true standard of church measurement? You are not to receive the testimony of Mr. Edwards as furnishing that standard. Highly as we may esteem him, his testimony must not be regarded as creating a standard for the church of the living God. We only ask that you accept his testimony as truly pointing out the faith and practice of the Christian Church. Likewise the utterances on the stand of Mr. Chapman, myself and Mr. Carpenter, were not made to erect an orthodox standard, but to establish clearly before your minds what this church does hold and [194] do. You are to take this solemnly proven position of the plaintiff's church, and place it alongside the infallible standard of Christianity, and see wherein it may vary, or if it fits into its exact measurement without the stroke of a hammer. Neither will you permit this standard to be erected by the testimony of the Rev. Dr. Smith, who is the acknowledged head of the eleven witnesses called for the defense. His testimony that we are unorthodox and heretical, was doubtless the earnest conviction of that venerable gentleman. But this jury, in its justice, will not tie us to the convictions of this witness. He charged many things against us as heretical which it was his "understanding" that we practiced. If you find anything lie charged against us as "heretical and unsound" forming a part of our position, then take it and try it by the standard.

      The utterances of our leading writers and speakers, here introduced, do not establish the standard of orthodoxy. They are only corroborative evidence on our faith and practice.

      Where then shall we find the desired standard? Dr. Smith testified that the great doctrinal points of theology upon which the orthodox churches were agreed, formed the test. And he asserted that differing from them was heresy. These agreed points are the atonement, depravity, impact of the Spirit, and the Trinity. A few of the Protestant churches have made a corner on these elements in transcendental theology, and won't let any one into their [195] orthodox pool unless accepting their statements of these four cardinal points. Scarcely any matter what else be preached, the acceptance of these establishes your orthodoxy. These fundamental points of Messrs. Smith and Post constitute the popular orthodox standard. They have sworn it. Also, these must be received in the formulated statements given by the schools. But these are not the standard. They are not the test of Christian fellowship and character. No man has ever been commanded by divine authority to believe in or to obey either of these formulated statements. To enforce them on the soul is impious towards the Head of the church, and subversive of the plan of Divine government. They are the doctrines of scholastic divinity, the vapory fulminations of brains pregnant with the philosophies of theology, but barren of the simple story of him whose life has filled the nations with light, and whose love is bringing a weeping world to his cross. The acceptance of these formulated statements can never bring a soul to the presence of its God, nor forgive a single sin. They may be the test of recognition among numerous religious bodies, but they can not decide the fitness of a church to wear the name of the risen Christ.

      By what authority has any school, or church, or set of churches ever set up a standard of orthodoxy? No competent authority has ever authorized it. It was a power unasked for in heaven, unassumed in hell, and only usurped among men when theologians [196] were born. We repudiate these standards which the defense seeks to have accepted here. They are partial and sectarian 'Tis ourselves who have affirmed our orthodoxy. Not against any other church, but before God. The word orthodoxy means the true Christian faith. We bring the book of the Christian faith and place it before you. You have heard our sworn witnesses on what we teach. Take our positions, measure them by the teachings in this Word of God. And if they lie four-square by the line herein given by the Spirit, justify us by your verdict; if they do not, cast us forth, as also shall the judgment of God at the last day.

      Hence in our evidence we standard but the Word of God. We lift it above the heads of all the theologies, assert that it is divine, and challenge the defense to refuse it as the final chamber of appeal in this action. Therefore have we introduced the Bible as the Christian's only standard of guidance. It says, "The entrance of thy word giveth light." It says, "The gospel is the power of God unto Salvation." That is all the power needed in the world. It says, "All scripture given by inspiration is profitable for reproof, for doctrine, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work." By inspiration it pronounces itself able to accomplish that for which it was given to man. We have appealed to this infallible and divinely true standard. [197]

      The defense has followed us up here, and say they place the Bible in all their creeds as the only correct test, but that we do not make acceptable interpretations of the great cardinal doctrines. Our witnesses have repudiated these interpretations from every source whatsoever. To stand over a church, or in a court of justice, and proclaim one a heretic for refusing to accept certain statements of divinity is the worst of heresies. This scholastic theology has desolated the house of God for fifteen hundred years. The crime of the church has been that it has assumed to know more than Christ and him crucified. One may comprehend all these doctrines, and never know a sin forgiven; he may have mastered all the complicated formulas of systematic divinity, and never had his heart touched by the love of God. But if one accepts the Gospel, he has been touched by the cross, he knows his sins forgiven, and has come to the salvation of God. If he be saved, Christ is for him, and who can be against him? The heretical maledictions of a doctor of divinity can not reach him there. If any man be in Christ Jesus, he is a new creature. His orthodoxy is established. What God has cleaned call not thou common or unclean.

      The Word of God must decide all our controversies. The true Christian faith--real orthodoxy--is receiving the Bible alone, and obeying the commandments which take us from the world into Christ. Who have done this are orthodox. Who [198] have not done so can not so claim. We claim to have done this.

      Gentlemen, we accept the law's assertion that you are twelve men good and true, and with confidence we place this Word of God before you as "the divine path of salvation," of which path divinity has said, "It is so plain that the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein." Our confidence in the integrity of God is such that we believe the path is just as plain. Although every one of you differ widely from us in your religious views, we believe you look down this book and see that path as it is. We have unrolled the history of our church before you, and with an unfaltering trust in your uprightness we boldly, confidently commit to your decision whether we have ever, by faiths taught or practices obeyed, stepped beyond these ordinances of the King.

      Orthodoxy does not mean the formulated doctrines of the schools. It does not mean a peculiar and technical phraseology concerning the cardinal points of direct impact, depravity, atonement, and the Trinity. We have ascertained that it means the true Christian faith. Putting it into practical operation it signifies the Bible, the whole Bible, and simply the Bible. Being permissible, under the evidence, let us go back to the original time and take some observations along the line of operation when this standard was set up and its great principles were for the first time put in motion. We are told in the divine testimony that the [199] doings of Israel were written for our ensample. Israel, a nation of two million souls, was assembled around Sinai--the pulpit of the Almighty--where he gave them the law which formulated their religion, and created them a church. There had been no church before this. There was no church in Abraham's day. From Eden to Sinai the world was churchless. All worship had been restricted to family lines. We now see the family lines enlarge until they swell into a single circumference, and all Israel, so far as worship is concerned, is melted into one family before the Lord. Families and tribes sink from sight, and the church in the wilderness stands a single organization, with one tabernacle, one high priest, one uniform and unchangeable order of worship and practice. If the Saviour built his house after the pattern of the sample shown in the Mount, he has one tabernacle, one high priest, one uniform and unchangeable order of worship and practice. But if the theory of the defense be correct, it is a righteous thing to break up the circumference line of this organization, and have a wilderness of lesser lines; to dissolve the solitary house, to wreck the real unified body, and let a house be built on Mount Gerizim, or any other mount, and bear any other name; to let the objects of faith be altered or increased at pleasure, and the practices be changed by climate and observed according to individual caprice. The defense is manifestly wrong. God never intended for His house to be desolated by such [200] confusion. His dealings with Israel, after this time, afford an incontrovertible ensample. That people were thrown into conflicts by the opinions of the rabble growing into the dignity of the law. They accepted doctrines that came from their great elders, and received traditions because they were venerable. A part of their tribes wandered from Palestine, and the remaining ones were divided in their worship, and split into sects. Rendered blind by their pride and the bitterness of their strifes, they knew not Christ when he came as the fulfillment of their law. Had they been living in the law, they would have known Him, and a united Israel would have speedily converted the world. But instead they were a divided house, with a disregarded law; and a world with a ransom was prostrate under sin. The indignant wrath of Almighty God was stirred against Israel, and for these eighteen hundred years she has been kingless and priestless; she has been a wanderer, with every man's hand raised against her, and finding no rest for her weary feet. Her presence today in every commercial center of the earth, persecuted, but "going on forever," forever expiring but never dead, is a living monument to the integrity of God. Men may, while professing to be his children, divide His house, and disregard His law, but His judgments shall not fail. On every public square you meet Israel with that curl of the hair and print of features stamped upon Abraham and Moses. Jehovah says, "My house is divided and my laws [201] altered, but these wanderers shall be changeless forever." If this be true of the type, how much sorer shall be the punishment visited on those who distract the real house.

      The interest of the kingdom of heaven in humanity is more universal and permanent than the interest of any earthly government can be; so the testimony offered by the records of the New Testament upon the establishment of its church and house of salvation is of primary value. Whatever it testifies was then done, must be accepted as the revealed purpose of Divinity. A law inaugurated, a commandment given, an ordinance established, an example recorded, or a suggestion offered, are all and severally to be viewed as revelations of the divine mind on human redemption. We accept and live by them, or reject and die from them. When God gives a commandment or form, it is to be obeyed. No substitution will answer. The thing given is what the Father intended. To say that it is not clothed with an imperial negative, a "thou shalt not do otherwise," is trifling with the eternal character. Whatever is given has the royal stamp upon it. That, and that alone, that in its entirety, must be obeyed. A deviation from that precise thing is disobedience and heresy.

      Mr. Edwards testified, and Mr. Carpenter corroborated him, that "on such doctrines as the Trinity, predestination, original sin, the decrees, etc., we are content to allow men to hold such opinion as [202] seems good to them without putting them under the ban of heterodoxy." On all these doctrines we leave the child of God to the same liberty Christ and the apostles extended him. No one of these doctrines is ever in the scriptures, by command, practice, or implication, connected with the conversion of the sinner or a righteous life. Any church that makes the formulated statements of these doctrines a test of fellowship has usurped authority in the house of God, and has added to the things herein written. The Christian Church does not make a test of these doctrines, it does not recognize orthodoxy as connected with them, it does not place them at the church door and say, "You can not enter unless you bear them in with you." It says, "On these profound and intricate subjects have correct views; you had better avoid constructions and stick to the test, speaking your faith in these things in the exact words of the scriptures." This is our practice. On all of these great dogmas we again present perfect fidelity to the divine standard.

      Counsel was at a loss to understand how we determined the construction to be placed on any passage of the Scriptures. Mr. Carpenter replied to such a question that we settled differences as other churches. "When they arraign a man and try him, they do it by their standard, the creed--as David Swing by the Presbyterians, and Dr. Thomas by the Methodists; and when we arraign a man and try [203] him, we do it by our creed, but that is the Bible itself."

      Then it was asked, if the particular congregation where a difference arose was the ultimate judge in that case. He answered, "Well, as we have never had any such case (and we are not likely to have), any answer I might give would only be an anticipation of it; but, to give my own opinion, I presume, as we have the congregational form of church government, that it would fall to the congregation where the difference should arise to handle it, either by its own membership, or by other brethren whom it might select to do so."

      Then came the question that was to produce a demonstration of the attorney's statement of the case, on the opening of the trial. He asserted that we were creedless, without helm or rudder in the religious world, and that our preachers taught all sorts of doctrine, and that we were destitute of any settled faith, or rules of interpretation. He contended that a church occupying our position would constantly be found in a wrangle of differences; that it was systemless and unorganized, and could never arrive at any uniform teaching or practice. With all the assurance of a lawyer that means to overwhelm a witness, the question was hurled at Mr. Carpenter, "Do you know of any such thing as a serious difference in doctrine having arisen at any time?"

      And to the confusion of the lawyer the answer was given, "No, sir; we have never been troubled [204] in that direction, and we are not likely to be. We take the Bible as our rule of faith and practice, and let it do its own teaching; we have never been troubled, to my knowledge, about the question of doctrine so-called."

      It was determined to risk another approach: "Do you mean to say that in your church, there is no uniform opinion--that one may have his own opinion, no matter what it is?"

      Now, the answer had no such meaning, for if we had had no serious differences, we had a pronounced uniformity of faith and practice, and presented to the world an unparalleled system in our organization. But let the witness answer: "No sir. In matters essential to salvation there must be uniformity of opinion; in the things not necessary to salvation the widest latitude and freedom are granted; the whole thing hinges upon the relation these things sustain to salvation, whether they are necessary or not necessary thereto."

      The entire line of questioning on biblical interpretation was conducted on the presumption that the primitive church did not present a perfect model, and that the experience of the ages had enabled men to improve on the revealed plan. The defense evidently believes it a necessity for church existence, that articles of doctrine be drawn from the scriptures, and surrounded with a corresponding form of church organization. Hence they regard the divided condition of the religious household as a prudent [205] and economic measure that brought order out of chaos, and a definite plan out of a confused generalization; that there must ever be broad differences in the constructions placed upon much of the divine teaching; that each of these paths of construction grows its own peculiar church practices; that this affords a house or refuge for every shape of doctrine, and the harmony of a government that has naturally grown up under it; that thus, the gospel, to be a practical value, necessitates religious denominations. This position is right or wrong. If right, we are wrong. If wrong, then the whole fabric of denominationalism is insecure, and must eventually fall.

      It has been twice demonstrated to be wrong. For sixty years we have existed as a people; our preachers and members have been scattered everywhere preaching the gospel; they have gone forth without any creed or "constructed doctrine," but with the gospel alone. We are today the third most numerous religious body on our continent, and we have never had any serious difference of doctrine at any time. We have demonstrated their theory to be wrong. The primitive church was without a creed or "constructed doctrine" for more than two hundred years. The apostles and early proclaimers bore to the world nothing but the gospel alone; false teachers came in, but they went out; it was the most harmonious, prosperous, and glorious era of the church, and they never had any serious difference of doctrine at any time. The primitive church [206] demonstrated this theory to be false. Can the defense present such a record? In the whole array of denominations is there one but what has been torn and rived by "serious differences"? And these factions have again warred and separated, until there are now more than five hundred denominations. Mr. Chapman uttered a truth when he said that the scriptures were not susceptible of more interpretations than are put upon human creeds.

      The primitive cause did not have its unity and prosperity distracted until men sought to enforce "constructed doctrine" upon the churches. Since that hour constructions have multiplied, and each new construction has brought a difference,, and every difference has increased trouble in the house of God. Human creeds, composed of constructed doctrines, for the purpose of accommodating differing views, are pernicious in theory, and injurious to religion in practice. That part of the Bible that treats on the things necessary to salvation does not require a "construction." All the statements concerning the necessary matters in salvation are plain commandments of things to be done by the sinner. Personally, I feel that God would not be good in placing the words of eternal life in such a darkened way that interpretation of them would be necessary. If such be the fact, the apostle made a mistake when he spoke of the gospel as being God's revealed plan of salvation. Neither do I feel that he is all-wise, if a "construction" be required upon these essentials [207] of salvation; because experience has shown that finite men have differed in the construction to be placed upon these things, and by the conflicts growing out of these different constructions the church has been desolated for fifteen centuries. On the matter of human depravity, the direct operation of the Spirit, the eternal decrees, the freedom of the will, and the whole array of intricate and profound theological problems, known as scholastic divinity, the Bible has not given a formulated statement, nor required a specific faith. The members of the primitive church, doubtless, differed upon these great questions. As they have no necessary connection with salvation, God has left us free to whatever opinion we may prefer. And all the statements concerning the necessary matters in salvation are plain commandments of things to be done by the sinner.

      You, no doubt, were much interested in the testimony on baptism. We rejoice that you had the privilege of hearing our position upon this subject stated from the witness stand, and supported by all the solemnity of a judicial oath. I am glad we got into court, so our standing on the question may be established by operation of law. For more than half a century, every bigot that has assailed us, every unchristian feeling that has been aroused, every charge of heterodoxy, every prejudice agitated, every slander propagated, every malign influence exerted against us has been along the line of the baptismal lie. Here, now, in this evidence, you have seen what [208] our teaching and practice is, and its conformity to the divine plan passes unquestioned.

      Witness Carpenter was asked, "Does the Church believe the teaching that immersion alone, immersion without faith, without repentance, without confession, avails anything to the salvation of the soul?"

      Did the witness hesitate? Did he halt and explain? His answer forever settles whatever doubt you may have had on the question. His answer was, "No sir, the church believes and teaches that such a baptism would be blasphemy before God." And the church everywhere lifts its voice and adds to that answer its indignant emphasis.

      The witness was then asked about the necessity of baptism. He answered, "It becomes necessary because it is one of the commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ; but the efficacy to save from sin is in the blood of Christ, which is appropriated and applied to the conscience by obedience to His commands."

      The witness read from Mr. Campbell's debate with Mr. Rice, p. 555, "While we regard immersion, in Christian baptism, as a wise, benevolent, and useful institution, we neither disparage nor underestimate a new heart, repentance, or faith; nay, we teach with clearness and definiteness, that, unpreceded by faith and repentance, it is of no value whatever." And again, on p. 678, he says, "You may have heard me say here (and the whole country may have read it many a time), that a seven-fold [209] immersion in the river Jordan, or any other water, without a previous change of heart, will avail nothing, without a genuine faith and repentance. Nor would the most strict conformity to all the forms and usages of the most perfect church order; the most exact observance of all the ordinances, without personal faith, and moral righteousness--without a new heart, hallowed lips, and a holy life, profit any man in reference to eternal salvation."

      Mr. Campbell believed this and taught it all his life. Mr. Carpenter believes it; and teaches it, as an evangelist in Indiana. Mr. Edwards believes it; and teaches it, as a preacher. The preachers of the church everywhere believe and teach it. There is not a member of the Christian Church anywhere but believes it with his whole heart, and teaches it with all his zeal.

      When Mr. Carpenter retired from the stand, we rested. We had introduced Messrs. Edwards, Chapman, Owen, and Carpenter. Their evidence was clear, direct, and convincing.

      Viewing the "orthodox churches" in the light of the spirit that animated these when they were established, our position is unique and consummating. Looking at these churches as organizations that have crystallized, and propose to stay permanently where they are, we have no particular apostasy of Romanism, and to seek for the primitive faith and practice, we have a very intimate relation. There is a great common purpose in our battle, and the glorious [210] object at which we aim, the restoration of primitive Christianity, is of infinite concern. Let us examine the Protestant bodies in their reformatory character. They were all a protest against Romanism. The protest created them. They were pro-test-ants. Men protested against what they conceived to be wrong in the mother church.

      The primitive church had a clearly defined practice. We may enumerate, that Christ was preached, and never a doctrine as such; sinners obeyed from the heart, and gladly, whatever the apostles commanded them to do, and no service was accepted as obedience that differed from the exact divine requirement; this obedience was the vehicle that transported the sinner into the church; Christ's body was at a place, and the sinner, as to a domicile, must arise and go there, that he might enter in; those coming into Christ, Christians, continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine; they knew nothing else as doctrine. Now, this life of Christ, contained in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John--this preaching of Christ's gospel to sinners, and the practices connected therewith, contained in Acts of Apostles--the letters of instruction to those who had become Christians, contained in Romans, Corinthians, etc.--with Revelation; constitute the counsel and wisdom of God in the Church. Congregations established in Christ's body by this "royal law," were soon multiplied, enlarged and augmented throughout the civilized world. [211]

      When the Council of Nice organized a doctrine in the Trinity, which drove men from the church, and forbid others an entrance therein, a step was taken which departed from the clearly defined practice of the primitive church. These departing steps multiplied with increasing councils, until the church stood forth robed in complete apostasy. It was now Romanism, and no longer The Church. Men sometimes wonder at the Dark Ages, and inquire the cause. There is no wonder here. When the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world, is put out, darkness must come. In one sense, his light was yet in the world; "but if the light in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" In proportion as men retire from the divine likeness, in just that proportion do they retire from a prosperous dominion over the earth. When God created man in his image and likeness, he gave him dominion over the earth; and as man restores that marred likeness, he regains earthly dominion. Great and beneficial results to humanity are not possible in heathen lands. Railroads, telegraphs, telephones, the application of steam and electricity, are not possible among the heathen. So among a continent of people, when the restored likeness is debased, advancement halts, and prosperity turns back on its axis. From Nice to Worms, the likeness largely restored was prostituted, and the world of growth was worse than standing still.

      We locate the organization of the Roman Catholic [212] Church in the Council of Nice. It was a new establishment in the religious world. Its councils decreed its articles of faith, prescribed its practice, and defined heresy. The Bible was always theoretically upheld; but in the course of years a creed grew up, which was consulted by every inquirer, which was the standard in every appeal, and which controlled every movement of the church. The church was founded on the creed.

      The important doctrines of Christianity were perverted in the most wretched manner, and such primitive purity as remained was obscured with extravagant opinions and idle fancies. The essence of religion was placed in the worship of images and departed saints. The fears of purgatory exceeded the apprehension of the eternal torments. The latter they expected to avoid through the intercession of the saints, but none dated to hope for heaven without the pains of purgatory first. The people were not privileged to read the gospel; it was a sealed book, and given out only by priestly interpreters. A long series of reprobate practices and apostate faiths poured a current of calamitous events about the church, until Zion, on the beacon hill of the world, became black as sackcloth of hair, and the sweet waters from her fountain of salvation and peace had turned to wormwood and gall.

      It was necessary that a reformation should come. God had said it would come. But for nearly twelve hundred years it did not come. It required more [213] than a thousand years for the Church of Christ to reach the depths of complete apostasy. But having turned from the simplicity of the divine establishment, there was no halting grounds until the depths were reached. Then a reaction began. One man alone could not produce a reformation. Reformations are not created single-handed, neither do they come forth in a day. They are an influence that moves forth unseen and unappreciated, an unformed sentiment, sweeping over a vast area of territory, and occupying much time, and finally converging at some center, and pouring into one man as through a funnel. He becomes the embodiment of the principle. It is personified in him. He is all afire with its integrity. He moves forth to its organization, and its consequent victory. So Luther became the incarnation of the faith and protest that had been growing in Germany for half a century. He flashed the sword of the Spirit before the dazed vision of the Pope, and at Augsburg organized the great return to the old paths of the apostles. The Lutheran Church, founded on the Augsburg Confession of Faith, did not reach the old paths, but it went as far as one generation could march. What the world had been growing into for a thousand years, could not be outgrown in one generation.

      Far be it from me to criticise this stalwart son of the faith. He did the grandest work of any man of his time. His mission was single. No man ever has more. His work was to arrest the career of [214] universal apostasy. He did it. He built his church on the Augsburg Confession, which was a protest against Romanism; but must needs leave the consummation of his holy purpose--the restoring of the simple primitive church--to the ages after him.

      The spirit of protest moved in England, where Henry VIII organized a revolt, and established the Church of England, the Episcopal Church. The king was moved against the Mother Church by his unrighteous desire to put away his wife, and marry Anne Boleyn; but God may cause the wickedness of man to glorify his cause. Out of the baseness of Henry's adultery, England, with her vast influence, took up her march from Rome. The Church of England was founded on what we may term the Episcopalian creed. It did not pass over all the creeds and councils, and take its stand on the ground its movement embodied. This was not possible, but England's coming made the reformation a certainty.

      Next came the Presbyterian Church. The spirit of reform was abroad in the world, and could not down. Bold spirits were hurrying in every direction, to find the church from which the fathers had wandered. As men surrounded by a fog in an untraveled and dangerous valley, seek to escape and find safety, all alike interested, but each distrusting the other's way, and with a confidence in his own that was born only of necessity, so did scores of reformers toil, through this age, to rid themselves [215] from the warp of judgment which twelve centuries of apostasy had thrown about the church, and come to know the truth as the early Christians knew it, and stand where they stood. In Geneva, John Calvin gave to the world his singular and wonderful doctrine of the Eternal Decrees. A hundred years after Luther they crystalized into the Westminster Confession of Faith, and gave us the Presbyterian Church. This Confession was not the story of the cross simply, as it was preached by Peter and John. It was a feeling through the fog, if haply they might find the house which they sought.

      Out of this same spirit came the Baptist Church, and built itself on the Philadelphia Confession. In that they expressed what they believed to be the right road to the grounds of common interest. But the way was so beclouded they could not venture yet into the Bible alone, but must have a creed as a staff to guide and protect them. Religious thought was steadily rising out of the valley. Men now needed but little of councils, conventions and creeds to help them. They were now beginning to see each other face to face. The Bible itself was begun to be read. It had become a sign-board, on which the hurriers by could read the way.

      This same spirit brought forth the Methodist Church. John Wesley never intended to establish the Methodist Church. But the tendency of worldliness in the churches was paralyzing all that had been gained by the reformation in other respects, [216] and a path of real piety must be sought out. The methods employed by Wesley to infuse spiritual life into the people, were original and peculiar. In the course of time they assumed a system, and took on the machinery necessary to continue the movement. Out of this an organization grew, that ripened into the Methodist Church. It took on itself a name indicative of its peculiarity, method-ist, and consigned itself thereto by establishing the Discipline, a creed conforming therewith, which was to control all its actions. The religious world has progressed so far into the light, that there was little need of longer resorting to experiments. There was small use for any discipline coined to assist a Christian. I have always thought that John Wesley ought to have protested against the hierarchy of the Church of England, and against all human appliances and church creeds, and with his devout nature and splendid powers, called believers to the simple word of God, and it alone. It may be that I am wrong, that the fullness of time had not yet come, and that the mission of this saintly man lay along the path of a restoration of personal piety. The world was not prepared for a restoration of piety when Luther came, or Henry, or Calvin; their movements gave that which the times required. But there was a hungering and thirsting after righteousness when Wesley came. He filled the want of the soul. God appears to have assigned one task to each of these [217] reformers, even as he gave one task to Moses and another to Joshua. Wesley was a glorious herald--an unconscious John the Baptist, setting in order the last work for the restored kingdom.

      The spirit that had worked among men for three hundred years brought forth the movement in which we are engaged, and resulted in the prophecy of Worms. Mr. Campbell was the leader of the special movement now known as the Current Reformation. He did not seek a new church, and earnestly protested against the formation of another sect. No sect was created, no church was organized. But a religious body was presented to the world, whose existence was not a purposed protest against Romanism. It had moved from a protest to an affirmative plea. It was not founded on a creed. Its faith was not defined by formulated articles, and the edicts of councils did not give it shape. It rested on the word of God. It rested on the word of God only. Every practice which the primitive church practiced, it put into practice; every person or doctrine which the primitive church required a faith in, it required a faith in. Whatever practice the primitive church did not operate, or faith not required, it made no movement in. It stood where the primitive church stood. The grand march began at Augsburg, and extending over three hundred years of toil and struggle, reached its blessed consummation when a handful of disciples, weary with the way and bruised in the conflict, cast themselves upon the word of [218] God alone. Up out of the valley, the "Old Paths" had been reached.

      Primitive Christianity was restored. God had built the house, and it was appointed with every appliance to move its vast interests in His service. Having reached the coveted ground, it only remained to operate the divine appliances, to make good the blood of the martyrs and the labors of the reformers. Has it been done? Have we only reached the goal to which the Lord's people started, or have we carried consummation to a fruition, and entered the practice of the Israel of God?

      This Church preaches the gospel to sinners as the power of God unto salvation, and never a doctrine as such. Is this heterodox? It is what the primitive church did; therefore it is apostolic. This Church teaches the sinner to have faith in Christ, repent of his sins, confess his Saviour, and be baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he thereby becomes a child of God. Is this heterodox? It is what the primitive church did; therefore it is apostolic. It never requires faith in any formulated statements of doctrinal divinity, leaving each person free to his own honest convictions thereon. Is this heterodox? It is what the primitive church did; therefore it is apostolic. This Church teaches those in Christ to add the Christian graces, and continue in the apostles' teaching. Is this heterodox? It is what the primitive church did; therefore it is apostolic. This Church calls itself by [219] the name of Christ, by the divine names, and rejects all other names. Is this heterodox? Is it what the primitive church did; therefore it is apostolic. This Church excludes all confessions, disciplines and creeds, and takes the word of God alone as its rule and guide. Is this heterodox? It is what the primitive church did; therefore it is apostolic. This Church practices or excludes, respectively, everything here enumerated. Mr. Edwards, Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Chapman, swore that we did so, and Rev. Mr. Post testified that this would make a man a child of God, and save his soul. This is not heterodox, for it is what the primitive church did, and is therefore apostolic.

      The testimony of the witnesses reveals this Church as holding the exact faith of the early church, and using every form of its practice. It reveals that nothing is omitted that the early church operated, and not a name, or a ceremony, or a creed, or anything whatever, has been added thereto. It does as that church did. This is Christianity restored. [220]

[NTC2 191-220]