Introduction

"I pray—for those who will believe in me through their teaching, that all may be one; that as you, Father, are in me, and I am in you, they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me, and that you gave me the glory that I have given them, so that they may be one, just as we are one; I in them, and you in me, that their unity may be complete: and that the world may know that you have sent me and that you love them as you love me." Thus the Messiah prayed; and rightly so, since he was wise enough to teach that, "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a family is divided against itself, that family cannot stand. Through civil strife, any kingdom can be devastated; and no city or family where such strife exists can endure."

If this is true—and it is true; if Jesus is the Messiah—what moral devastation is the kingdom of Jesus Christ in! Was there ever, or is there now, anywhere on earth, a kingdom more shaken by internal conflicts and divisions than what is commonly called the church of Jesus Christ? If anyone thinks it lawful to exclude both the Greek and Latin churches—removing one hundred million members of the Greek and Roman communions from the visible and invisible boundaries of the Christian family or kingdom of Jesus Christ—and regard the Protestant faith and people as the only true faith and the only true citizens of Jesus’ kingdom—what then shall we say of them, considered as the visible kingdom over which Jesus presides as Prophet, Priest, and King? Of forty million Protestants, shall we make the visible kingdom of the Prince of Peace? Let it be so, for the sake of argument; and what then? The Christian army is forty million strong. But how do they muster? Under forty banners? Under forty opposing leaders? Would to God there were only forty! In the Geneva contingent alone, there are almost as many petty chiefs. My soul sickens at the details!

Take the English branch of the Protestant faith—I mean England, the United States, and all the islands where the English Bible is read—and how many conflicts, divisions, and curses can we count? I will not attempt to name the opposing creeds, feuds, and parties that are in constant war under the banners of the Prince of Peace. And yet they talk of love and charity, and of converting the Jews, the Turks, and Pagans!

Shall we turn away from the picture, lay down our pen, and despair? No! For Jesus has said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God." But who can make peace when all the elements are at war? Who is so enthusiastic as to imagine that he can stem the torrent of strife or quench the violence of sectarian fire? But the page of universal history whispers in our ears: If you wait until all the warring armies lay down their arms and make one spontaneous and simultaneous effort to unite, you will be as much a fool as the one who sat by the Euphrates, waiting until all its waters run into the sea.

We are so hopeful—perhaps many will say, so visionary—as to imagine that a nucleus has been formed, or may be formed, around which all the children of God may one day gather. No one, at any rate, can say that it is impious or immoral—that it is inhuman or unchristian—to think about the present state of Christ's kingdom or to consider the possibility or practicality of any plan to gather the children of God under the banner of the Cross alone. No one can say that such an enterprise is absolutely unrealistic unless he denies the Messiah’s proposition and declares that the present wars and conflicts must continue and multiply forever, and that God will convert the whole world without answering the prayer of his Son; or rather, on a plan contrary to that proclaimed by him, and despite all the moral devastation that has resulted from the conflicts and battles of five hundred sects over fifteen hundred years!

Would anyone dare to say, or even think in an unkind or hostile way, that it is wrong to make an effort to rally the broken ranks of Zion’s King and to try to persuade them to turn their weapons away from each other and against the common enemy? With such a person, it would be worse than hopeless to reason or exchange a single argument. Should we not rather consider it the most honorable, acceptable, and praiseworthy endeavor that can be dared or undertaken by any human on this earthly stage? And since God has always brought about the most remarkable revolutions through the humblest agents and by means most unlikely in the wisdom of all human schools, we think it neither inappropriate nor inconsistent to make an effort and to lend a hand to the work of peace and love.

From the Messiah’s intercession quoted above, it is undeniable that unity is strength, and division is weakness; that there is a plan founded in infinite wisdom and love, by which, and by which alone, the world may both believe and know that God has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. And like all the plans of Heaven, it is admirably simple. No human should imagine that he will have the honor of devising either the plan to unite Christians into one holy band of zealous cooperation or of converting Jews and Gentiles to the faith that Jesus is that seed in whom all the families of the earth will yet be blessed. The plan is divine. It is ordained by God; and, better still, it is already revealed. Is anyone eager to hear it? Let him read again the intercessions of the Lord Messiah, which we have chosen for our motto. Then let him examine the two following propositions and say whether these do not express Heaven’s own plan for increasing and preserving the body of Christ.

First. Nothing is essential to the conversion of the world except the unity and cooperation of Christians.

Second. Nothing is essential to the unity of Christians except the Apostles’ teaching or testimony.

Or does he prefer to express the plan of the Self-Existent in other words? Then he may change the order and say,

First. The testimony of the Apostles is the only and all-sufficient means of uniting all Christians.

Second. The unity of Christians with the Apostles’ testimony is all-sufficient, and alone sufficient, for the conversion of the world. Neither truth alone nor unity alone is sufficient to overcome the unbelieving nations; but truth and unity combined are omnipotent. They are omnipotent because God is in them and with them, and has consecrated and blessed them for this very purpose.

These two propositions have been stated, illustrated, developed—and shall I say proved—in the Christian Baptist and Millennial Harbinger to the conviction of thousands. Indeed, one of them is as universally accepted as it has been proposed, namely: That the unity of Christians is essential to the conversion of the world; and though, perhaps, some might question whether, if all Christians were united, the whole world could be converted to God, there is no person we have heard of who admits a general or universal spread of the gospel—in what is usually called the millennial age of the world—and who admits that moral means will have anything to do with its introduction, who does not also admit that the unity of Christians is essential to that state of affairs. Indeed, to suppose that all Christians will form one communion in that happy age of the world, and not before it, is to suppose a moral effect without a cause.

The second proposition, namely—That the word or testimony of the Apostles is itself all-sufficient, and alone sufficient, to the unity of all Christians, cannot be reasonably doubted by anyone familiar with that testimony or who accepts the competency of their inspiration to make them infallible teachers of the Christian institution. And, indeed, all who defend those human institutions called creeds do so only as necessary for the existence of a party or while the present schisms, contentions, and divisions exist. Therefore, all defenses of creeds, ancient and modern, while asserting that the Bible alone is the only perfect and infallible rule of faith and morals, not only concede that these symbols called creeds are imperfect and fallible—but also that these creeds can never accomplish what the Bible alone can.

But how to do without them seems to be an insurmountable difficulty for many well-meaning Christians. To dwell on this point would be outside our present purpose, especially as it has already been fully discussed in the current controversy.1

It is perhaps enough for now to ask the question: How has what is called the church dealt with them? Have they not been the fertile cause or occasion of all the discord, schisms, and parties now existing in Christendom? And will not even a superficial observation and a little experience convince anyone that rivers flow as surely to the sea as creeds and human devices in religion lead to discord and division? Take, for example, two of the most popular creeds of today—the Westminster and the Methodist—with whose history American society is more familiar than with any other, and test the tree by its fruit—judge their tendency by their practical effects on society. To say nothing of the smaller schisms in the party that once formed one communion on the platform of the Westminster creed, we can now count no fewer than nine separate communions—all professing the Westminster articles, in substance or form. These are the General Assembly in Scotland and the United States, the Cameronians or Solemn League and Covenant Presbyterians, the Burghers or Unionists, the Anti-Burghers or Seceders, the Relief Presbyterians, the Cumberland Presbyterians, and the New School, now on the verge of being born. To these might be added those called English Presbyterians, now more generally known as Independents and Congregationalists; and, indeed, the Glassites or Sandemanians, who came out of the synod of Angus and Mearns in 1728. Thus, in one hundred and ninety years, nine or ten distinct communions have originated from the Westminster creed. Some of them are as discordant and distant from each other as the Jews and Samaritans once were. Nor have the Methodists in England, Canada, and the United States done much better for their time. They now form five or six separate denominations, under different names. To say nothing of the Whitefieldite Methodists, those of John Wesley are the Wesleyan Methodists, the New Connection of Methodists, the Methodist Episcopal Church, the O'Kelly Methodists, the Radicals, etc.

And what shall I say of the twelve or fourteen sects of Baptists — many of whom have as much affection for the Greek and Roman church as for one another! It would be useless to provide further evidence proving that human opinions, inferential reasonings, and deductions from the Bible, presented in the form of creeds, can never unite Christians; as all their results are alienation, repulsion, bickering, and division. No human creed in Protestant Christianity can be found that has not caused a division for every generation of its existence. And I may add — the more thoughtful, inquisitive, and intelligent the community that holds a creed, the more frequent their debates and divisions.

But the Bible will do no better if people approach it with a set of opinions or a human symbol in their minds. For then it is not the Bible, but the opinions in the mind, that form the bond of union. People, indeed, would be better off having a written rather than an unwritten standard of orthodoxy if they will not abandon speculation and abstract ideas as any part of Christian faith or duty.

But all these modes of faith and worship are based on a misunderstanding of the true nature of Revelation, which it has long been our effort to correct. With us, Revelation has nothing to do with opinions or abstract reasoning; for it is founded wholly and entirely on facts. There is not one abstract opinion, not one speculative view, asserted or communicated in the Old Testament or New. Moses begins by asserting facts that had occurred in creation and providence; and John ends by asserting prophetic or future facts, in the coming displays of providence and redemption. Facts, then, are the alpha and the omega of both Jewish and Christian revelations.

But so that the reader may have before them in one summary view the whole scheme of union and cooperation, which the Living Oracles and the present state of the Christian religion in the world demand; which has been, at different times and in various ways, illustrated and supported in the present controversy against divisions — we will here present it in one sentence.

Let the Bible be substituted for all human creeds; facts, for definitions; things, for words; faith, for speculation; unity of faith, for unity of opinion; the positive commandments of God, for human legislation and tradition; piety, for ceremony; morality, for partisan zeal; the practice of religion, for the mere profession of it; — and the work is done.

For the illustration of the key terms, and their correlates found in this project, and for a full explanation of our meaning (as we may or may not be understood if interpreted by the polemic vocabulary of this age) — we will introduce some extracts from the Christian Baptist and Millennial Harbinger, developing our meaning, and containing some of the main points which have been fully brought out and discussed in a controversy of twelve years.