Have We Become A Sect?

While opposing sects and sect-making have we not ourselves become a sect? That we are so charged by the various parties of the day is a well known fact. But is the charge founded in truth? In the present article I shall attempt an answer to this question; but that this attempt may be attended with the better hope of success, it will be necessary to notice first the subject of sects generally.

The word sect is derived from the Latin seco, which signifies to cut; and a radical thought in both cut and seco is that of separating a thing into parts by cutting it. Hence the word sect necessarily implies a previous cutting; and the sect is one of the parts which results from the cutting. Now the thing cut is not itself a sect, unless it has resulted from a former cutting, which it may do; for clearly we may have sect of a sect, as a cutting of a cutting. But with reference to its own parts the thing is never a sect. A sect, therefore, is a part of that which has been separated by cutting it. Such is the meaning of the term as deduced from etymology. But this is not necessarily its Scriptural meaning. Its Scriptural meaning is to be learned from the import of the word of which it is a translation. What the import of this word is will presently be shown.

In Greek we have three words which it will be important to notice, two of which are sometimes treated as corresponding with sect, though incorrectly so except in part. These are σξισμα, διξοστασια, and αιρεσις—scism, division, and heresy.

Scism, or its Greek representative, is derived from a verb which signifies to split, rend, or tear apart; and the word scism denotes strictly the rent or split. Whether it ever denotes the parts rent or split off is questionable; and it is certain that it never denotes them in the New Testament.

The original of division, διξοστασια, literally means a standing apart, or separation. From this it easily comes to denote the things that stand apart; and in this sense is exactly equivalent to the word faction. It is in this sense alone that it occurs in the New Testament.

Heresy, in Greek, is derived from a verb which means primarily to take, as with the hand; and from this it comes to express taking with the mind; as when in an act of choice we take one thing in preference to another. It is in this latter sense only that the verb stands related to heresy. While therefore the word [242] heresy implies an act of choosing, it expresses only the thing chosen, and that which results from it, or grows out of it. This is strictly its acceptation in the New Testament.

Confining these terms now to bodies of men and women, and the distinction which exists among them may be once pointed out. For this purpose let us suppose such a body to consist of a thousand members. This body is to be considered the genus or comprehending whole; in other words, it is not to be considered as a body of a larger body, a division of a larger division, but an absolute body. Let us now suppose this body to be divided into ten equal parts; and we are prepared to show the distinction among the terms.

The word scism refers both to the whole body and to its sub-divisions, and denotes strictly a rent or split in either of these. The word διξοστασια, division, signifies the factions formed by a split in the latter. It hence relates not to the whole body, but to factions in its sub-divisions.

The word heresy relates either to the whole body or to any one of its sub-divisions, but chiefly to the former; and denotes a party formed in it, but formed in a particular way. A person, for instance, in one of the sub-divisions, elects an idea foreign to the principles of the whole body, and introduced it into his own particular sub-division. Around this idea he proceeds to form a party. This party thus formed is now a heresy—a heresy both with reference to the particular sub-division in which it originated and to the whole body, but especially with reference to the latter. And this heresy is the true Scriptural sect. Whatever, then, may be the etymological import of the word sect, this is its Scriptural import; and in this sense, for the most part, we shall henceforward use it. Other distinctions existing between sect and faction will hereafter be pointed out. From the preceding the main or general distinctions can easily be collected.

From the foregoing it is evident that the words sect and faction express not absolute but relative ideas. Hence it is not every body of men and women that can be denominated a sect or faction. If a body formed be ab initio without reference to any other body it is not a sect, neither a faction. It is a sect or faction in so far only as it has been formed out of another body.

But since the words sect and faction are relative terms, the question arises, to what do they relate as the thing cut, rent, or divided—the thing out of which the sects and factions are formed. Of course no reference is here had to sects in politics or in philosophy, nor even in religion save the Christian. Hence the answer is that they refer exclusively to the body or church of Christ. This then is the thing cut, rent, or divided. How this is done, [243] and how sects and factions are formed out of it, I shall now proceed to show.

For this purpose I shall select a particular church or congregation, as the church at Corinth. To this church Paul thus writes: “Now I beseech you brethren by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you.” Divisions is not the word we should have here. The original is σξισματα; hence we should have scisms. The passage would then read: “that there be no scisms among you.” Here the word scisms denotes simply rents or seams that existed between various parties in the church. It has no immediate reference to the parties themselves—is not name for them—but merely marks the partition lines which separated them. The word which properly denotes the parties themselves, and which stands as a name for them, is διξοστασια, divisions, or factions; and we should prefer the latter. The word divisions is ambiguous, signifying both the separations or rents, as well as the parties separated; whereas the word factions denotes only the latter. It is hence preferable, and I shall therefore use it.

These parties consisted of little groups of persons in the church, united together by an undue attachment to certain eminent men who had been instrumental in their conversion or who had perhaps baptized them, such as Paul, Peter, and Apollos. These attachments were of the flesh and not of the Spirit; hence they marred the peace and affected the coherence of the church. They cooled its love, and thus became evil and divisive in their effects.

But be it particularly noticed, that although we here have both genuine scisms and genuine factions, we yet have no sects. Wrong and injurious as these factions were, still they were not sects. A chief element essential to sects was wanting in these, hence they were no sects. A sect is something marked with deeper stains of sin than marked these factions. Hence scism does not necessarily imply sect, though sect always implies scism. Scism may stop short of sect, implying only faction.

What then is the distinction between faction, διξοστασια, and sect, αιρεσις? I answer, that faction implies a simple departure in conduct from the truth, and not a corruption of it, and is confined to single congregations; whereas sect implies both a corruption of the truth and a departure from it; and is not necessarily confined to single churches, though ordinarily originating in one. In sect the practical departure from the truth may be no greater than in faction, in which case the only distinction is, that in sect the truth is corrupted, in faction, not. Faction embraces all these little parties which spring up from time to time in individual congregations, and which owe their origin not to the corruption of [244] the truth, but to human weakness, or to some of the various manifestations thereof, as ignorance, prejudice, passion, and the like. I hardly need add, that faction may assume as many forms as the causes have which produce it. Sect, on the contrary, though it may assume like numerous forms, always originates in a single uniform cause, to-wit: the corruption of the truth. This corruption can be effected in only one or both of the two following ways:

1st. By importing into the church and incorporating with the truth some doctrine or tenet wholly untaught in the Bible. It is chiefly in this way that philosophy has contributed to the corruption of the truth. The sect-maker, who is the genuine Scriptural heretic, elects some doctrine in philosophy and introduces it into the church. Having mixed this with the truth, he next proceeds to form around it as a center his sect. Such is the first method of corrupting the truth and forming sects.

Now, for the sake of distinction, I shall denominate this foreign doctrine the heresy, but the party formed about it the sect. The word heresy, in the New Testament, as already stated, denotes both these, while the word sect denotes only the latter. Certainly it is not desirable to retain the word heresy in English in both these senses, nor to use both words in the same sense. Neither can we abandon the word sect. It is hence best to make the distinction I suggest.

But it may be well here to settle that the word heresy in the New Testament denotes this foreign doctrine. For this purpose I shall cite the following language from Peter: “There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them.” That the word “heresy” here refers to false doctrines or opinions may be set down as certain. For, first, these heresies were something to be brought into the church. Now sects are not something first formed out of the church and then brought into it. On the contrary, they are formed in it and then go out of it. False doctrine alone, then, is the thing here named as that which was to be brought into the church. Second, that the clause, “denying the Lord,” is a specification of one of the heresies to be brought in can hardly be questioned. I hence feel safe in denominating false doctrines introduced into the church heresies. And for the sake of another distinction I shall style this type of heresy intrusive heresy, because it is intruded into the church.

2d. By misconstruing the teachings of the Bible. For, clearly, a doctrine elicited by misconstruction of any portion of holy writ, provided it is really false, that is, is nowhere else sanctioned by the Bible, is as truly false doctrine and as pernicious in its effects as though it were wholly an importation. This form of [245] heresy I shall name constructive heresy, because it is introduced into the church by false constructions of the Scriptures. But no matter from what source the doctrine springs, the party formed about it is the same—a sect.

Now to one or the other or both of these two forms of heresy may be traced every sect in Christendom, now existing or that has existed. Of course it would be easy to distribute these two general forms into numerous specific sub-divisions; but I shall attempt nothing of the kind here, as it is not necessary to the end I have in view.

It is proper here to remark that it is not necessary for a party to be wholly corrupt in order to be a sect. A single false idea is enough, provided it is made the basis on which the party is formed. Indeed, it is universally thus that sects have their rise. Like men, they do not become corrupt all at once, if they ever do. It is not the policy of Satan to allow them to do so. The fewer the false doctrines, provided these really lead to the formation of a sect, the better for him. It is far easier for the man to delude himself with the belief that he will be saved, who holds ten truths and only one fatal error in consequence of which he has taken one fatal step, than it is for him who holds ten errors and only one truth; and as long as a man can persuade himself that he will be saved, he is not likely to abandon much that he holds. Indeed, the fatal error of sectarianism lies in this, that with the few false doctrines it holds, it still holds many that are true, and persuades itself that its few false doctrines will be overlooked in virtue of the true. Yet nothing can be more fallacious than this. For if a man knowingly holds one false doctrine, or one which with reasonable effort he might know to be false, and in consequence thereof takes a step so deeply criminal as that of becoming a sectarian, it is simply certain that he cannot be saved if he remains in this condition. He must abandon his doctrine, retrace his step, and repent of both, or he is lost.

Here perhaps it will be well to enlarge a little on the two kinds of heresy or false doctrine now named, and to point out how they become foundations on which to form sects.

Even, then, in the first century efforts began to be made to corrupt the pure teaching of the gospel. The sources from which the corrupting elements were chiefly drawn were the oriental and western philosophies then in vogue. Gnostic and other notions of the world, the nature of Christ, the nature of the human soul, and a future state, thus early began to infest the church, and to be used as grounds on which to rear sects. These notions being something wholly unknown to the Bible, were clear instances of [246] intrusive heresy. Around them Christians in their weakness and corruption rallied; and thus laid the foundation for those dreadful defections which have ever since disgraced the Christian profession.

To the foregoing is to be added a very different class of notions derived from the Mosaic writings and held as necessary to salvation. These notions were the first to corrupt the pure teaching of Christ. They were either retained or adopted by large bodies of the early converts from among the Jews, and were made by them the bases on which arose the numerous Judaizing sects who gave the early churches so much trouble. They formed another instance of intrusive heresy, and greatly corrupted the truth of Christ.

To these two classes is still to be added a third class, compounded of heathen superstitions, Gnostic notions, and Jewish teachings, and constituting the huge mass of Papal traditions. Of all the intrusive heresies with which the church has ever been cursed, these have formed the most injurious and disgraceful. They are still the life and food of modern sects.

Constructive heresy arises from so interpreting the holy Scriptures as to make them mean either too much or too little, or something entirely different from their true meaning, and in some instances even from denying them outright.

1st. For illustration, let us suppose the thing taught to be that Christ has come in the flesh. Not only is this denied, but since it is admitted that he has come in some form, it is maintained that he has not come in the flesh. We have here two positions; one affirmed in the Bible but denied, and the other proposed in its stead. The choice lies between the two, and the heretic takes the latter; takes it, and in the case of the Gnostics, on the ground that human flesh is essentially evil, and that, therefore, Christ cannot have come in it. This lie is now made the center around which a sect begins to be formed, and so the work goes on. This form of heresy might more aptly be denominated negative than constructive; but it is best not to multiply classes where it is not absolutely necessary.

2d. Let the thing taught be the qualifications necessary to entitle a person to baptism. Construing the Scriptures on this point to mean too much, and we have the ancient doctrine respecting catechumens, and the modern heresy of getting religion, and relating experiences.

3d. Let the thing taught be regeneration. Construing the Scriptures to mean too little, and there results the delusion that regeneration consists exclusively in an internal change or change of heart. [247]

4th. Let the thing taught be the unity of the church. Construing the Scriptures on this point to mean something entirely different from their true meaning, and we have the doctrine of a plurality of churches or a plurality of branches of the same church.

Other illustrations will readily occur to the intelligent reader; for they are innumerable. The foregoing are suggested as mere samples, and are enough for our purpose.

But here an important question arises, to-wit: are sects confined wholly within the limits of the church, or do they ever exist without it? That the latter is the popular view as well as the popular understanding of the term, I do not think worth while attempting to prove. Even those who admit that there may be sects within the church, still insist that there are many wholly without it; while of course those who deny that any sects are within it, hold that all sects are without it. Now I take the position that both these parties are wrong; and that sects exist not without the church but wholly within it. Nor am I here using the word church in a loose popular sense, but in its strict Scriptural sense, or as equivalent to the phrase, the body of Christ. On this apparently singular position I beg the reader to suspend his judgment and hear me patiently.

The word sect, or heresy in the sense of sect, does not occur in the Old Testament at all, nor in the first four books of the New. In Acts it occurs six times. In four of these it clearly refers to parties recognized or treated as sections of the great Jewish family, and in no sense as separate and distinct from it. Nor is there any just ground for regarding it as having a different reference in the other two instances. That the sect of the Nazarenes, spoken of by Tertullus in his prosecution of Paul before Felix, was deemed by him simply as a new sect among the Jews, hardly admits of a doubt. And it is simply certain that Paul in his defense reiterates the term in the same sense in which Tertullus had used it. From its usage, therefore, in this book, it appears to apply strictly to parties in the Jewish family; and to parties regarded as still in it and of it, and not separate from it.

The same is true of the term when applied to parties in the church. It denotes such only as are within it, and never such as are without it. “For there must,” says Paul in writing to the Corinthians, “be also heresies [sects] among you, that they who are approved may be made manifest.” Where, according to this, were these sects to make their appearance? “Among you,” is the reply; that is, among you Christians in the church. Again, in enumerating the works of the flesh the same apostle mentions, among other things, “strife, seditions, heresies,” or sects. And [248] clearly he is here speaking of evils which existed and might exist in the church, and not such as existed without it, and had no connection with it. Finally, the heretic or sect-maker, after a first and second admonition, is to be rejected. But where is he at the time of receiving these admonitions? Certainly in the church in which he is engaged in creating his sect. But these are all the instances of the use of the term in the New Testament except one, where it denotes, as clearly shown, not sects but false doctrines. Sects I therefore conclude are something confined strictly to within the limits of the church.

But let no one suppose, because these sects originate and exist in the church, that they are, therefore, right, or that they are to be tolerated in it. Such supposition would be grossly false. That sects are wrong, nay essentially evil and wicked, may be conclusively argued from two considerations. 1st. Those who create them “shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Such at least is an apostle’s decision. 2d. Sects cannot be right and making sects be wrong. Yet Paul directs that he who makes them shall be rejected, and clearly because he is an evil-doer. We may hence conclude them to be essentially sinful.

But suppose a sect to be once formed in the church, but ultimately to become separated from it, no matter whether by its own voluntary act in withdrawing, or by the act of the church in expelling it, what then is it? Is it still a sect? No. It is no longer a sect. The instant it passes beyond the pale of the church it ceases to be a sect. It is now an apostasy. In the church it existed only as a sect; out of the church it exists only as an apostasy. Such is clearly the distinction between sect and apostasy. While in the church it is a αιρεσις, a little party holding a false tenet, with merely a rent or seam between it and the rest of the church, but not yet completely separated from it. Now, however, it is an αποστασια, the same corrupted party standing wholly off from the church, completely severed from it, and having no connection whatever with it.

Let this offstanding body now go on increasing in size, collecting members from every available source, until its proportions have become so vast as to cover whole districts of country, and even to pervade whole kingdoms. Now appoint to this body a head, an ecclesiastic and civil head, one who claims the power, jure divino, to govern kings, and to alter at will “laws” in the church of Christ, and we have the “Man of Sin,” the Papacy, or great apostasy foretold in the Bible. Let factions now arise in this body and ultimately separate from it. In these again let other factions arise and finally separate from them. In other words, let us have apostasies from the apostasy, and apostasies [249] from these again, without any complete return to the church of Christ, and we have the various parties now in Christendom complacently styling themselves “Christian sects,” such as Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. These parties are not originally apostasies from the church of Christ, but apostasies from the Papacy or from other apostasies therefrom, and constitute the harlot daughters of old Mother Rome. Their harlotry consists in this, that they carry on an illicit intercourse with the world in the institution of infant sprinkling, and thereby introduce into the so-called church a breed of bastard children, born after the flesh and not after the Spirit. That these parties are better than the parent stock in most respects is gladly granted; but that they still fall far short of the church of Christ is certain. But of all the perversions of language known to me, none is greater than to call these parties Christian sects. They are sects in no sense of the word save a false sense, but apostasies both from Rome and from Christ. In that we praise them, in this condemn them. It is hence an abuse of the word to call them sects, and a prostitution of the name of Christ to call them Christian. To call them Christian sects makes them appear not merely harmless things, but most attractive. Had they been branded as God has branded them, with the deeply opprobrious epithet of harlot daughters of Rome or apostasies, the world would never have been gulled by them as it has been.

It is proper here to remark that a whole congregation or individual church may become an apostasy precisely as a sect in some particular congregation may become one; that is, by adopting some foreign doctrine and conforming thereto. The only distinction is that this church, as soon as it adopts and conforms to the corrupting doctrine, becomes a sect in, and with reference to, the whole church, and not first in some particular congregation thereof; and that as soon as it proceeds so far that, were it a part of some particular church, it would have to be expelled, then it is to be deemed a genuine apostasy.

But when we speak of a particular denomination, or of a particular church, as an apostasy, be it borne in mind that we speak strictly of the party as such, or the organized body, and not of all the individual members thereof. Even in apostasies we may have individual Christians; and these, since they resist the corruptions of the apostasy and keep themselves free from it, are not to be condemned with it. Such individual Christians are commanded in the Bible to come out of these corrupt bodies; and if they fail to heed this command, they may go down to ruin with the party they refuse to abandon. [250]

As hypocrites ordinarily affect a deeper piety than even the purest Christians. so “Christian sects” affect the profoundest reverence for the truth which they corrupt. There is, however, no enemy so much to be feared as he who, while pretending to be your friend, thrusts his dagger to your heart. And so with these “sects.” The cause of Christ has no other enemies it has so much reason to fear. They affect the highest veneration for the Bible; yet they make creeds. Now the party that does this publishes to the world, if no more, at least four things:

1st. That the Bible is an insufficient rule of government for the church. For if it were sufficient, no creed would be needed for that purpose.

2d. That the Bible is an unsafe guardian of the truth. For if it were not, the truth might safely be left to its keeping.

3d. That the creed is a safer guide in some things than the Bible. For if not, the Bible might be left to guide in all things without the creed.

4th. That human wisdom is better than Divine. For that has produced the creed, this the Bible; and the creed is, for some purposes, better than the Bible; for if the Bible be for all purposes better than the creed, then none but a fool can accept the creed for any purpose.

Can “Christian sects” be friends of the Bible when they publish of it such things as these to the world? That they are its friends in many respects I shall not deny; but that in many others they are its enemies I am painfully certain. They acknowledge themselves to be “sects,” yet they cannot but know that the Bible condemns them in this. How can they be truly its friends, when in the face of its authority, they knowingly persist in making and being what it condemns?

In regard to apostasies, or “Christian sects,” one of two positions must be taken: Either that they are all wrong but one, and it is right; or that they are all wrong in some things, and right in some. The former position is out of the question; the very fact that a party exists confessedly as a “sect,” to say nothing of apostasy, determines it to be wrong. The latter position, then, alone is tenable. Now if these “sects” be wrong in some things and right in some, in which things are they wrong? Can any creed in Christendom, or all of them together, answer this? Clearly not; and this proves how worthless they are. Neither can it be answered by comparing one party with another party; nor by comparing one individual of one party with another individual in a different party. Suppose, then, we agree to compare all with the infallible standard of Christianity.

Is a genuine Methodist, then, a true Christian? It would [251] certainly give offense were I to deny it. Be it so, then, at least for the present. But is a genuine Baptist also a true Christian? Let this too be granted. A genuine Methodist, then, is a true Christian; and a genuine Baptist is a true Christian. Now certainly things which are equal to the same third are equal to another. Therefore a genuine Baptist is a true Methodist; and a genuine Methodist a true Baptist. Now this conclusion we known to be false; yet it could not false were a genuine Baptist a true Christian neither more nor less, and a genuine Methodist the same.

But let us suppose that a genuine Baptist is more than a true Christian; that is, that he holds to more doctrines, and more practices, than are essential to constitute a true Christian. Even he himself will acknowledge the excess to be wrong. But where does he learn that it is wrong? Certainly not from his creed; for his creed determines him to simply a true Christian and not more. He learns it from the Bible. Here, then, in a most vital point, he learns from the Bible what he cannot learn from creed; and this establishes both a difference between them, and that the creed is defective. Of course the same train of reasoning, with a simple change of terms, applies to him supposing him to be less than a Christian. The same is also true of the Methodist. From all of which it follows that the Bible is, after all, the only infallible source from which we can learn what a true Christian is, as well as the only infallible test of what it takes to constitute one.

But I am anxious to so curtail or add to both this Methodist and Baptist that each shall be neither more nor less than a simple Christian. For this purpose I propose to extinguish the differences which exist between them; and the first which I propose thus to dispose of is their creeds, and all that they have learned exclusively from them. Few persons, I am persuaded, will demur to this on the score that I have marred anything really Christian in these men. The next difference which I propose to extinguish is their names. For if both of these men be true Christians neither more nor less, evidently there cannot exist between them even a nominal, to say nothing of a real difference. I next propose to cancel their connection with their respective parties. For were they one in all other respects, belonging to two different parties would itself make a difference. Consequently they are now, be it supposed, Christians strictly according to the Bible; that is, they mentally accept and in heart hold, as the matter of their faith, precisely and only what the Bible certainly teaches; they do and practice what, and only what, it either expressly or by precedent enjoins; in spirit, temper, and disposition, they are exactly what it requires; and as to names, they wear none save those [252] which it imposes. With no infallible test of Christianity, can they now be compared so as to warrant either a false or an absurd conclusion.

I therefore conclude that the position now occupied by these two men is the true position for all Christian men to occupy.

But did all Christian men occupy this position, what would be the result? 1st. We should have no creeds, no parties, no party names; and that we owe it to God to have none I infer from this: that the Bible authorizes neither a creed, nor a party, nor a party name. 2d. We should have no difference in the matter of faith, none in practice, but a simple, faultless conformity to the will of God, and consequently the most perfect union of which we can conceive. Now when we reflect on the results which would follow a consummation like this, how is it that any pure heart can ever cease to pray for it, or any truly good man ever decline to work for it. If they ever do cease to pray or decline to work for it, then I confess this question unanswerable.

But we are told that all Christians cannot see alike; and that consequently the existence of “Christian sects” is unavoidable. This, then, is a plea for these “sects,” a plea based on the ground of necessity. Now we shall certainly not deny that we ought to have “sects,” provided they are really necessary. Let us therefore examine a little the ground on which this plea rests.

Is it true, then, that all Christians cannot see alike? It is a humiliating fact, I grant, that they will not see alike, but a grand lie that they cannot. Paul would never have besought his brethren to be “perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment,” if it is not possible for Christians to see alike. Neither would he have entreated them to “speak the same thing,” if they cannot see alike; for seeing alike is the basis of speaking alike. Nor would Christ have prayed that all his disciples “might be one,” as he and the Father are one, if Christians must see differently. I therefore decide that all Christians can see alike; and what they can do they are solemnly obliged to do.

Three things, and only three, are necessary to seeing alike. 1st. That we look at the same thing. For if one man looks at the sun and another at an iron spike, it is very certain they will not see alike. 2d. That we look through the same medium or same degree of light. For what is merely a tombstone to one man in broad daylight, is a ghost to another at night. 3d. That we all look from the same stand-point. For if a Baptist should look at the moon from the door of a Baptist church, and a Presbyterian should look at it from a Presbyterian church, to the former the man on the moon would be immersing, but to the latter sprinkling. These three things attended to and all [253] Christians can see alike, provided they are willing. And if they be not willing, the question is settled on a very different basis from that of necessity; for what men will not do in a case like this, will very certainly never be done.

But we have another plea for these parties, namely, that they are a good thing, since they watch over each other with a jealous eye, and thereby keep each other within safer bounds; and that besides, one by its jealous regard for the word of God prevents another from corrupting it. Had it been said that they watch over each other with a hellish eye, that they drive each other to the greatest extremes, and that each perverts the word of God in attempting to defend its own extreme positions against the rest—this would have been much nearer the truth. That the Popish heresy of justification by works alone begat the Lutheran heresy of justification by faith alone, cannot be denied by any intelligent reader of history; and that the parties holding these respective views ever exerted over each other any beneficial effect by their jealous watchings, would, I am persuaded. be hard to prove. Nothing can be more remote from the truth than to suppose that men mutually guard each other by differing, especially in the spirit in which one religious partisan differs from another; and that one prevents another from corrupting the truth by driving him to defend extreme positions. No defense, therefore, for “Christian sects,” can be deduced from these premises.

But we have still another plea for “Christian sects,” to-wit: that they afford each man, on his making a profession of religion, an opportunity of choosing where he shall live. I frankly grant it; but are they justifiable on this ground? At this period of his life a man’s Scriptural knowledge may well be regarded as ordinarily very defective, his former prejudices as not wholly overcome, and his carnal attachments as not yet completely subdued, nor his previous errors as entirely corrected. At no time in his life is he more ill qualified to make a choice than now, especially one seriously affecting the eternal interests of his soul. Yet, according to the present plea, it is a good thing to afford him an opportunity just now of making a choice among a score of warring “sects.” Nothing can be more unsound than such a position. On the contrary, we say hem him in between the alternatives of accepting the church of Christ or rejecting it, and you immeasurably diminish his chances of erring. This is our position as a people, the former that of the various parties of the day. Reader, what sayest thou?

We have now for some time been designating the various denominations of the day as parties simply, or in their own style, [254] as “Christian sects.” But these titles present them in far too inoffensive a light. Parties they certainly are; but they are something worse than mere parties. They are apostasies. Let no one, then, conceive of them under the comparatively innocent notion of parties, but view them in their true light as apostasies. This is painful I grant, and can afford no pleasure to any truly benevolent heart; but stern justice demands it. Against the individual members of these parties we cannot have even one unkind feeling. Many of them we regard as true Christians, and love them sincerely. But as long as they occupy a place in bodies holding traditional and other unsanctioned tenets; holding practices unknown to the Bible, and sporting humanly imposed names, we must tell them plainly that they stand on apostate ground. We could wish a thousand times it were otherwise; but vain are even the purest wishes here. When heresy once takes full possession of a man, his soul heeds neither the warning of God nor the entreaty of men. Obstinate and eccentric then are all its ways.

But as yet the questions standing at the head of this article remains unanswered, to-wit: Have we not become a “sect?” In the light of the premises now before us it will not be difficult to reply to this question; but without these premises our reply must necessarily have been confused and unsatisfactory.

First, then, I inquire into our original intention in regard to the point raised by the question, did we at the first intend to form a “sect?” With emphasis I answer we did not. On no page of Mr. Campbell’s, Mr. Stone’s, Mr. Scott’s, nor in any tract, pamphlet, periodical, or speech, written or unwritten, of ours, has such a thought ever found utterance. On the contrary, our original intention was absolutely neither to form a new sect (taking this term in its popular acceptation), nor by word or deed to aid the upbuilding of any one already formed. From the very commencement of our labors we set our faces with deadly hostility against every conceivable form of sectarianism. We eschewed the thing with our whole hearts; and never by look or word or deed, from that day to this, has it had any countenance from us. If, therefore, we have formed a “sect,” it has been at least unintentionally done. Hence we are to be acquitted of any criminal intentions in the case.

Second. But did we not originally intend merely to modify or reconstruct some existing “sect,” and thereby virtually form one? I again answer with an emphatic denial. A “sect” reconstructed would still be a “sect;” and we were opposed to “sects” in every conceivable shape or form. And what in this case we did not intend to do, it is absolutely certain we have not done. We are [255] therefore no modified or reconstructed “sect.” The history of the world will, I believe, justify the remark that “sects” never grow better by reconstruction. There is but one remedy for “sects;” and that is complete extinction.

Third. What then was our original intention? This I shall leave to be learned from our origin. But what was that? Certainly it was not denominational. We did not originate as a party either original or reconstructed. On the contrary, our origin was purely individual; that is, we commenced with a few persons in an individual, and not in an associated or organic capacity. But when I say our origin, let me not be misunderstood. The language is not strictly correct, and may lead to a false inference. I am using it as the language of the world, and to express a conception of the world. We, i.e., our brotherhood, appear before the world as a “sect,” having a determinate origin in time and manner like other “sects,” and as distinguished from them precisely as one “sect” is distinguished from another. The language, therefore, relates to what seems to the world as our origin, and not to an origin per se, or to any thing we would designate as such. We do not admit that we are a “sect,” hence of course we deny a sectarian origin. This is as explicit as I can well be just here.

Fourth. But how, strictly, did we take our origin, and in what did it consist? It is more particularly in replying to this inquiry that I shall furnish an answer to the question, have we not become a sect? We took our origin then as follows:

One or two pious men determined that they would closely and prayerfully study the Bible, but especially the New Testament, for the purpose of determining precisely, first, what it teaches as the matter of faith; and, second, what it enjoins as the matter of duty necessary to a man’s becoming a Christian. By this course they were led to a minute analysis, in the light of this book, of their own existing religious views and feelings. These they ultimately distributed into two classes. 1. Such as the New Testament indisputably sanctioned. 2. Such as it indisputably did not sanction. These latter were utterly and forever discarded. Midway between these two classes lay a third class which it was not indubitable that the New Testament did or did not teach. this class it was agreed to hold for the time being sub judice as mere opinions, but in no case to make them tests of soundness either in the matter of faith, or in that of duty.

Having thus settled what is the matter of faith and the matter of duty necessary to becoming a Christian, their next step was, in the spirit and temper prescribed by the Master, to conform exactly to this matter, and that, too, without even the slightest [256] regard to what they had previously been or done, or to any existing church or denominational connection. Indeed, they had already, by their own deliberate resolution, sundered every tie which bound them to any existing party or sect as such. In heart they were conscious of a sincere faith in Jesus Christ as the son of God, and of a pure love of him. In regard of past sins they were cordially sorry for them, and, as far as they had not already done so (for they professed to be Christian men), resolved to forsake them. In this frame of mind they publicly professed with their lips the faith of their hearts, and thereon were immersed in the name of the Lord. If not now saved, if not Christians, on what ground can we ever vindicate as true the solemn asseveration of Christ, that “he that believeth and is immersed shall be saved?” Thus we had our origin.

But clearly this was not the origin of a “sect” or of a party as such, but simply instances of a few men becoming Christians. And it would be just as appropriate to term each instance of a man becoming a Christian the origin of a “sect,” as to term these instances of our origin. Yet so novel a thing was it in those days for men to become Christians strictly according to the New Testament, and that alone, that these few instances were thought to mark a new era in the history of the church. Hence to them the world has agreed to affix the epithet our origin; and it is in this accommodated sense that we have used it. The work thus commenced went on till half a score or more of persons became obedient to the faith. These now met and formed themselves into a church after the primitive model as laid down in the New Testament. And now, in the present day, we as a people consist of individuals who have thus obeyed the Saviour, and of communities or churches organized after the same ancient type. But we are not yet ready for a decision of the question, have we not become a sect?

We are sometimes termed Reformers, and the work in which we are engaged the Reformation, and sometimes in an accommodated sense we thus term ourselves and our work. What does the language mean? I have long been convinced that it carries a false import. The word Reformers, as applied to us, means simply a new kind of sectarians, and the word Reformation the work and principles of a new sect. But this is far from the sense in which we use them. In what sense, then, if at all, are we reformers? Certainly not in this, that we propose merely to reform existing so called sects and parties. When reformed, they would still fall immeasurably below the work we wish to see effected. This work done, and we should have neither sects nor sectarians; but only the church of Christ and Christians. Neither are we [257] reformers in the sense of being a new sect, because we propose to reform the world. For though we do this, it is no reason why we should be thought of as a new sect. Were the apostles still alive they could propose no less; yet this would not justify us in terming them sectarians. In one view only can we be deemed Reformers, namely, if a Christian man holds erroneous tenets and practices, we require him to abandon the one and correct the other. But he who does simply this can in no legitimate sense be termed a sectarian! But if a man belongs to the world, what we require is, that he shall become simply a Christian; and if he belongs to a sect, but is not a Christian, we treat him precisely as though he belonged to the world; that is, we ignore wholly his sectarian connections, character, tenets, and practices, and require him to become simply a Christian. Consequently there is nothing in our being reformers as now explained to mark us as a sect.

I doubt not the word Reformers was first applied to us because it was supposed that we intended merely to reform the Baptist denomination, with which many of our brethren originally stood connected; but we never proposed to reform that denomination. The reformation we proposed looked solely to individual Christians and not to denominations. Many Baptists we then regarded, and still regard, as sincere Christians, but as in error in several things. In these things we proposed a reformation; but at the same time we required an abandonment of all party connections, names, and peculiarities. We proposed that the Baptists should be Christians simply, and should cease to be Baptists; and that they should belong to the church of Christ only, and not to the Baptist denomination. In only a very restricted sense, therefore, can we be termed reformers; and that a sense which in no respect distinguishes us from the simplest and purest type of Christians.

The Reformation of Luther was a reformation in the strictest sense of the word. What he proposed, at first at least, was merely to reform the Roman apostasy. An effort to build up the church of Christ, as something wholly distinct from the Papacy, was a thought that did not enter his brain. But in this sense we are not Reformers, neither is the work in which we are engaged a Reformation. Indeed, our work is strictly a Formation and not a Re-formation. We are laboring solely to build up the church of Christ, and neither to build nor rebuild, form nor reform, any thing different from it.

Still, though such was our original intention, and such the work we proposed, have we not, nevertheless, become a sect? If so, it must have been in one or both of the two ways previously laid down.

First, then, have we introduced into the church any foreign [258] element or doctrine unsanctioned by the Bible; and are we endeavoring to form around this a party? If so, I shall only say that forty years of watching and labor upon the part of our opponents who have lacked neither ability nor industry, have been wholly insufficient either to detect that element, or to point out even the shadow of that party. And I feel safe in concluding that had either existed it would long since have been shown. To the charge, therefore, of Intrusive heresy I plead, in the name of my brethren, not guilty.

Second. But cannot the charge of Constructive heresy be made good against us? In other words, have we not been guilty of construing the word of God to mean either too much or too little, or something which is not in it, and are we not forming a party about this error? I reply to this as to the previous charge. We have certainly intended nothing of the kind; and if we have done it by accident, our opponents have lacked neither the inclination nor the ability to expose us. Yet they have not done it; sound criticism, enlightened reason, and honesty being judges. Hence to this second count we also plead not guilty.

Finally, we accept as the matter of our faith precisely and only what the Bible teaches, rejecting everything else; and in our practice endeavor to conform strictly to what it, and it alone, enjoins either in precept or in precedent. In life and heart we aim to be all and purely what it requires. We wear no name which it does not sanction; and repudiate all sects, parties, and apostasies, as well as any and every conceivable form of connection with them. If, then, we are still a sect, I submit it to the candid reader, whether, upon any ground known to him, he can acquit the apostles and primitive Christians of that offensive charge?

My Review of Mr. Jeter.—I am frequently receiving inquiries in regard to this work. To all who may want it, I take this method of saying that I have about two hundred copies on hand, which it is certainly to my interest to sell. They are doing no good in my hands; they might do good if in the hands of others. I shall be sincerely thankful to the brethren if they will aid me to dispose of them. To any one who will send me one dollar, I will send a copy of the work, post paid.

M.E.L. [259]

[Volume I: March, 1864]

HAVE WE NOT BECOME A SECT?