Church of Christ Studies

Reformers and Restorers

I think, ladies and gentlemen, that I have never seen a finer interest displayed on the part of the public to hear the truth, or at least what I believe to be the truth, than you have manifested by your presence to-night, especially in view of the fact that it is raining and storming; and your having come even through the rain makes me regret very much that our services are so rapidly drawing to a close.

 

I want to say that I have especially appreciated your presence, and, above that, the very courteous and inspiring attention that you have given to every effort that I have made. God has, I think, bountifully blessed us all, and unto him be all the praise.

 

I want to talk to you in a general manner about reformers and restorers along religious lines. Time forbids anything like a detailed account of the history that has characterized the church; and even if I were well prepared thus to present it, I could not do so on an occasion limited as this one necessarily is. All scholars practically of note and merit agree that the day of Pentecost was the birthday of the church of Christ. It was then that the material prepared by John the Baptist was builded together, and thus the nucleus wars formed. Under the guidance of inspiration and by the power of the gospel, believers were added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women. It may seem strange to say that in a space of thirty years, the gospel, starting out from Jerusalem under the very simple machinery that characterized its efforts, spread abroad unto earth's remotest parts, until the apostle declared that the gospel in which the Colossians had been rooted and grounded was preached unto every creature under heaven. He also stated that their sound went into all the earth and their words unto the ends of the world. Their work began in Jerusalem, and it spread throughout Judea, the immediate country, then to Samaria, then to Galilee, then to Asia Minor, and at last across the Aegean Sea, over sweeping the country of Europe and passing on to earth's remotest parts. But before the close of the first century the disposition of humanity, in its opposition to submitting to the authority of the word, had begun to manifest itself, and a series of the bitterest sort of persecutions had their origin. Not many centuries had passed until there was formed an ecclesiasticism, the object and purport of which was to direct the religious machinery, not according to the word of God, but according to human intelligence, personal feeling, and opinion.

 

This grew and multiplied until by and by a regular hierarchy was formed upon the earth. Seeking step by step and order by order to weave itself into the political affairs of the world, it finally succeeded in blending the powers of church and state. The Pope became the highest authority on the earth. Second to him was the king or the ruler of the country. Unto these all powers were granted, and unto these every person was amenable.

 

But during the time that is incorporated in what I have possibly suggested there was begun what is known in history as the "Dark Ages," lasting for a period of about twelve hundred years and bringing the world down to the beginning of the sixteenth century. At this time people began to open their eyes and cast aside delusions under which they had been, and to exercise more thoughtfulness, greater intelligence, and greater freedom in all matters. This marks the beginning of that period in history that has to do with what we style the Reformation. It is the period of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and others that towered above their fellows, each one having a special line of thought that he wanted to emphasize and get before the world.

 

Martin Luther, of Saxony, is the acknowledged leader and head of the Reformation of the sixteenth century. When about nineteen years of age, he became a monk in an Augustine convent. Here he found an old Bible, the study of which soon convinced him that the religion of his day was wholly foreign to that taught by the God of heaven. He was led to see the corruption and hypocrisy of those directing religious affairs. and he set himself to the task of bringing a change or reformation along these lines. Menaced by the thunders of Rome, he fearlessly proclaimed what he believed to be the truth in the face of all that men or devils could devise to intimidate and destroy him. In the presence of the Pope and under the maledictions of Rome, he said: "I am free by the grace of God, and bulls neither console nor alarm me. My strength and my consolation are in the place where neither men nor devils can reach them."

 

Since Christ stood before Pilate, since Peter stood before the Sanhedrin, since Paul stood before Agrippa, one of the greatest moral spectacles which this old earth has ever witnessed was Martin Luther before the Diet of Worms. In the presence of emperors, kings, and potentates—all the power and pomp of civil authorities, reinforced by the ecclesiastical omnipotence of Rome he stood, with the demand made upon him to retract his religion or forfeit his life! His answer will ring down the corridors of time until it mingles with the funeral notes of the last trumpet that proclaims the end of the world: "Since your serene majesty and your high mightiness require from me a clear, simple, and precise answer, I will give you one, and it is this: I cannot submit my faith either to the Pope or to the councils, because it is as clear as the day that they have frequently erred and contradicted each other. Unless, therefore, I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, . . . I cannot and will not retract; for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience." He concluded by saying: "Here I stand. I can do no otherwise. May God help me! Amen !"

 

He saw the church in alliance with the state, clad in the robes of earthly splendor, purchased in exchange for her virtue.

 

With a courage all must admire he undertook to reform an institution that had sunk to the lowest depths of corruption and had made merchandise of the salvation of the souls of men.

 

It was Luther who taught justification by faith in contrast to the cold and ritualistic theory of Rome. It was he who unchained the Bible and tore it loose from the ecclesiastical powers that held it from the people. He gave it back to the world and championed their right to read and learn for themselves God's will and way. Of such as was he Mr. Whittier has well said:

​

"Let, then, O God thy servant dare

Thy truth in all; its power to tell;

Unmask the priestly thieves and tear

The Bible from the grasp of hell!"

 

Following close after Luther came John Calvin, of France, emphasizing as no one had ever done the sovereignty, majesty, and dignity of Jehovah. His platform consisted of five planks, as follows: Predestination, Irresistible Grace, Original Sin, Particular Redemption, and the Perseverance of the Saints. By his power and earnestness he made a profound impression upon the world and caused his name to be perpetuated as a great reformer.

 

In connection with Luther and Calvin there is another not known especially as a reformer, but rather as the founder of the Church of England. When Henry VIII. came to the throne, he was married to his brother's wife Catherine, of Spain. Unto them several children were born; but all had died in infancy, save one daughter, the "Bloody Mary" of later time. He was lamenting the fact that he had no son to succeed him, when he became attached to Anne Boleyn, the queen's maid of honor. He, therefore, decided to secure a divorce from his wife and marry this girl of nineteen summers. The matter was presented to the cardinal, who at first favored the scheme; but when the final test came, the Pope and the court decided to the contrary. Whereupon the friends of Henry declared him to be the supreme head on earth of the Church of England. In 1533 he married Anne Boleyn; and when the Pope heard of it, he ordered the king to put her away and to take back Catherine. Parliament met the next year and declared Henry VIII. the sole head of the church, and made denial thereof an act of treason.

 

Thus began the Episcopal Church, which owes its origin to the fact that a man wanted to get rid of his legal wife in order to marry another, both against the law of the land and of God.

 

Time rolled on. Another century sped by, and the beginning of the eighteenth found the religion of the world cold, formal, and ritualistic.

 

About this time John Wesley, of illustrious parentage, came prominently into view. Of him it was said: "He breathed into the nostrils of English-speaking Protestantism, and it became a living soul." With three other young men, he formed an organization or a society the object of which was to emphasize purity of heart and a reality of religion. He stirred the sentiments of his hearers and kindled a zeal that spread throughout the land.

 

Paul encountered the hate of Judaism; Luther, of Romanism; and Wesley met in nearly every form short of death the malice of the Established Church.

 

Despite the ridicule, contempt, disparagements, and degrading persecutions heaped upon him by the Established Church, of which he was a regularly ordained minister, this grand man forward marched with an unfaltering step to the accomplishment of the great mission he felt God had committed to his hands.

 

So I have presented to you in this general way those who were styled "the reformers" on the pages of history. I would not be guilty of causing any reflection or any kind of jeer or sneer at a man of the type thus outlined and delineated. I bow in recognition of the nobility of purpose and splendid achievement of John Calvin, who announced the supreme sovereignty of God Almighty. All of us ought to join in a hearty "Amen." Martin Luther marched out and unchained the Bible from the pulpit and gave it back to the people and announced a system of justification by the faith of God rather than by cold penance, and the whole world ought to rejoice. When John Wesley, that grand, good man, caught the idea that men must love God and with their hearts must demonstrate the purity of life, that they must put their souls into their religion, he but expressed that which ought to characterize every human heart under the shining stars to-night. But after having said all this, and much more, in commendation and in commemoration of these great reformers, there is not the least reason under heaven why anybody should so become beside himself as to render undue respect, undue homage, and undue adoration unto either.

 

Was John Calvin crucified for us? No. Then leave him as but a man among men. Were you baptized in the name of Martin Luther? Then likewise let him remain in the place that he doubtless would ask and demand for himself. Was John Wesley in any way our Savior? Absolutely not. It was his one purpose, his very chief objective, try to reform that which refused to be reformed. There are some things that will yield to reformation. There are some men that can be straightened out from their crookedness and corruption and turned into the right channel. There are others that positively and absolutely refuse to be reformed, and the last remedy and resort is to depart and to seek a divorce therefrom.

 

I say it in all kindness and to the credit of each of these men that, noble as their work was, they started on an impossible task. Those institutions which they endeavored to reform stubbornly and vehemently refused to yield to the efforts made. Therefore, failure characterized the labors of all three of those men, whose motives, intents, and purposes, I doubt not, were as pure as the drifting snow.

 

The opening of the nineteenth century found the religious world still in a state of chaos and confusion. Denominationalism, division, discord, and a partisan, sectarian spirit were visible on every hand. The Christianity of the Bible, characterized by its purity and simplicity, had been lost to the world, and infidelity went about waving its blackest banner and challenging the doctors of the day.

 

Then appeared upon the scene Thomas Campbell and his illustrious son, Alexander, who, profiting by the experience and failure of the reformers, set about, not to reform anything, but to restore the religion of the apostolic age. They saw that denominations were unknown to the Bible; that creeds were a source of division and infidelity; and that party names were a curse and a hindrance to the fulfillment of our Savior's prayer. In a "Declaration and an Address" they set forth some general principles on which all who loved God could unite and at the same time no one sacrifice a real matter of faith. Their motto was: "Let us speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent."

 

They, therefore, proposed to the religious world for all to cut loose from anything and everything not specifically in the Bible and to go back to the beginning, back through the "Dark Ages," and on further until all come to Pentecost and Jerusalem. It was their purpose to plant the Jacob's staff at the beginning corner and, with the Bible as their guide, to run again the lines outlined by the apostles under the direction of inspiration. Hence, the work of the Campbells was not that of reformation, but of restoration, of the church of the Bible and the religion of our Lord. For me to say to you that they had the right ideal and the proper conception is but to compliment your intelligence and unbiased judgment. They insisted that the word of God is the seed of the kingdom, and that it made no difference whether or not a single crop of Christians had been produced or a church of God established during the centuries past. Of one thing they were certain—viz., that if the same seed, unmixed and unadulterated, were planted in the year 1812 as were in the year 33, they would produce exactly the same kind of a crop as when planted and preached by Peter on Pentecost. If I were sure to-night that I had the same kind of wheat that was raised in our Savior's day and were to plant it in your county, I would feel absolutely sure that a similar crop would be reaped. Such is God's principle told over and over in Gen. 1. Therefore, I have never worried over "church succession" or the "apostolic chain."

 

The supreme effort of these restorers was to get all real believers to come together and find out just what God demanded, aside from ecclesiasticism, aside from human opinions, creeds, and speculations. The principle upon which they set to work is outlined by Moses E. Lard, who was a graduate of Bethany College and a companion of Alexander Campbell. He interpreted the work of the Campbells as follows, and I insist that you hear him patiently: "The restoration was to consist in holding precisely and only what is taught in the word of God, and in founding our practices strictly thereon.... It was determined that the final end to which the restoration should look is a complete return to primitive Christianity, in doctrine, in practice, and in spirit. All of which is concisely expressed in the following decision: To believe precisely what the Scriptures teach, to practice only what they enjoin, and to reject everything else. Hence, the restoration proposed was to be marked, positively, by accepting, as matters of faith, what, and only what, the Holy Scriptures teach; practically, by doing everything and only what they enjoin; and, negatively, by rejecting everything which they do not sanction. . . . Hence, all practices having their origin in tradition, human reason, or expediency are utterly eschewed. Such was the restoration proposed by Mr. Campbell and his brethren." (Lard's Quarterly, 1863.)

 

This is a platform big enough, broad enough, and deep enough for every Christian on earth to occupy and have no occasion to feel that he is making a sacrifice in so doing.

 

The creeds of the land are a curse to the cause of Christ. They ought to be cast aside, not because of prejudice, not that they were not written by honest, earnest, good men, but because we have God's word, which needs no revision, no amendments, no repealings. The creeds of men hinder the progress of Christianity, divide believers in the Lord, and engender a party and sectarian spirit. In the language of the great English evangelist, I can truly say that if I had my way, and all of them were in a pile before me, I would be glad to strike the match and see them light up the heavens in their final destruction and annihilation. I really believe I would be doing that which would advance primitive Christianity in our beloved land.

 

A further statement of the restorers was this: "We propose to the world that in matters that are purely opinions, men shall have the greatest possible liberty: but in matters of faith, there shall be unity. Every man may have his private opinion, but he must hold it in check and keep it to himself; and whenever any man, therefore, undertakes to drive his opinion into the body assembled and let that be the standard, then the purpose and objective shall have been thwarted and turned aside." Oneness was the chief ambition, the end in view; for they realized the force of our Savior's prayer, the last that he ever prayed previous to his crucifixion, when in John 17:20, 21 he said:

​

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which

shall believe on me through their word; that they all

may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,

that they all may be one in us."

 

Lord, what for?  "That the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

 

The greatest tool that the devil has obtained is not direct talk against the Bible, but the most effective weapon in the hands of sinners to-night, in the hands of atheists and skeptics, is the fact that people who claim to be religious are divided into parties, sects, denominations, and orders unheard of and absolutely unknown to the book of God.

 

We are reminded of the story of the old character unto whom the missionaries had gone. First one denominational preacher came, then another, begging the old character to become a Christian and enter into civilization. AFTER all had made their pleas, he, speaking with possibly more wisdom and greater philosophy than they contemplated, finally said: "Gentlemen, I have heard your pleas; I have listened to your stories. Why don't you gentlemen go back to your enlightened America—back into, possibly, Tennessee; maybe to our splendid capital—and you gentlemen agree among yourselves, and then come to me, and I will give more respect to your story." Christ had that in view. In the name of common sense and of high Heaven, do you think that any sensible man is going to believe that God Almighty is back of all the denominationalism and creeds and parties that are all divided and contrary and in opposition the one to the other? That very teaching is sowing greater seeds of infidelity and doing more destructive work than all the atheists in the entire land.

​

My friends, there are some three or four points on which, if the world could unite, other matters would follow in their respective places. I want to suggest them to you in these terms:

 

1. Upon the right creed,

2. Upon the proper name,

3. Upon the correct baptism,

4. Upon the right order of worship.

 

All other matters would hardly be responsible for a be but subsidiary and could divided state. Time forbids the discussion of these matters to which they are entitled, but let me just say this: If this world ever unites upon a creed, it must be the Bible and that alone.

 

Now, you may take some creed written by man; let its advocates make the finest speech in its behalf, laud its articles, the faith therein, the splendid writings, and the ritualistic form; and when he has done his best, do you think the world is going to accept that? Absolutely not. Positively to the contrary. I might say to you: "Here is a discipline; I could make a fine speech in its behalf; I think good men wrote it; I think honest men were back of it, and it is a fine production." But when I insist upon its acceptance on the part of the people, some man arises and says: "Men uninspired wrote that. I have a confession of faith that was written by just as learned men, just as honest, just as sincere, as those that penned your discipline; and I won't give up mine to accept yours, on the ground that both of them are uninspired." There is no possible union on either of these.

 

But let me walk up with the word of God and say: "Gentlemen, in behalf of unity and oneness, would you have to sacrifice any principle to lay aside your discipline and accept God's word ?" If they were to answer fairly, the reply would be: "No."

 

Listen: If your discipline contains more than the Bible, it might contain too much; and if it contains less than the Bible, it might contain too little. But if it contains no more nor no less, then it is just like the Bible; and since we don't need two books identical, I beg you, in behalf of union, to give up yours and accept the article that is genuine in itself. That is what the world must do, if ever union is brought about in that line.

 

Well, again, if this world unites upon a name by which professed followers of the Lord shall be called, it will not be the name "Democrat." Why, you could not possibly get the world to unite on that. Why? It is not in the Bible. God says not one word about it, and no Republican would sacrifice his dear name in order to accept one of no higher authority and no more Divine than is his own.

 

What will happen if we professed followers of the Lord ever intend to help bring about the union and answer the prayer that our Savior prayed while in the shadow of the cross he bowed himself? It must be a name that all men can wear, that is not narrow, nor limited, nor bound by party lines or ties, or prejudice, in any respect whatever. It shall be the name "Christian," which shows our relation to our federal head—Jesus Christ, the husband, of whom the church is the bride.

 

As a matter of fact, when a woman loves a man as she ought to love him before forsaking all others father and mother, home and all—she ought not to want to wear anybody else's name than his unto whom she pledges her life, her service, her all. Enough love for the husband will wipe out a desire to the contrary. If the world, therefore, is ever united upon a name, we will all have to be just simply Christians, without a prefix, without a suffix, without a handle to it, without something added that is unknown to the word of God.

 

Upon the question of baptism the world is practically, if not altogether, united. Everybody says and knows that immersion is the genuine article.

 

What is to be the union? Let us stop trying to substitute. Let us stop trying something that is untaught in the word of the Lord. Let us just simply take things as they are; and since already we all profess to believe in immersion and will accept candidates that have been immersed, why not let that settle the question and say we have decided to get together and strike hands thereon.

​

Again, when I come to the system of the worship of the restoration movement, let me say that they taught that men and women in the church of God, in the local congregation, ought to meet together on the first day of the week, the object of which was to worship God in spirit and in truth. They said that worship consisted of teaching, of preaching the gospel unto the people, of praying to God, of partaking of the Lord's supper, of the giving of our means according to our abilities, and of singing praises and making melody in our hearts unto the Lord.

 

My friends, where is the man or the woman who cannot do that and at the same time not sacrifice any genuine conviction or principle or matter of faith? Is there something in that theory or outline that you believe to be untaught? If so, show it, name it, and we are ready to remove that thing. Is there something else that ought to be incorporated in that list? If so, show it, name it, and I, for one, want it before the morrow's sunlight bursts upon the bosom of the earth.

 

From 1812 on down the line there never had been such a wonderful influence exerted upon the hearts and the lives of men. It swept this country from center to circumference, bidding defiance to all manner of opposition and towering above, like mountain peaks, all the things that challenged or were contrary to the word of God.

 

I would like to tell you, if time permitted, of the greatest debate ever held in America. When Robert Dale Owen, of New Lanark, Scotland, came to our Southern city of New Orleans in January, 1829, he immediately offered defiance to every sacred and holy thing in religion, and challenged the clergy to debate with him the truth of Christianity. This he had done wherever he had gone. His challenge went out to all America. Why didn't some of the very eloquent and learned doctors of the day respond and meet him ? There was a reason. Do you know, my friends, that it was not only true then, but it is true to-night, that any man who is bound by a creed or discipline or a confession of faith other than God's word is not in very good shape to meet an infidel in debate? They knew that Robert Dale Owen would have said: "Sir, if you believe the Bible to be sufficient and complete, why do you have to have your little supplementary book "" I can fancy the humiliation and the force that such a query would bring. The doctors all sought a hiding place and allowed the infidel to stalk triumphantly over the land. But there was a young man over at Bethany, Va., humbly teaching school; and when his Bible was challenged and the faith in which he believed was brought to task, he rose up to champion it. This was none other than Alexander Campbell, who came to the rescue of the Christianity of God's book; and, with a boldness characteristic of the man, he went forth without human aids or human equipment. He was simply clad in the Christian armor, with nothing under heaven but the sword of the Spirit, God's word. He met Mr. Owen in the city of Cincinnati on April 13, 1829, and continued the discussion eight days, at the close of which the banner of Christianity waved in triumphant victory. All the world tonight ought to bow in gratitude and thanksgiving unto his courage, to his scholarship, and to his ability to rout the infidel from the American continent and to save believers from humiliation.

 

And yet sometimes some poor, puny, insignificant soul is so low as to speak belittlingly of Alexander Campbell, when, as a matter of fact, if the least thought that he ever had were put into his critic's cranium, there would be an explosion like a bombshell.

 

Let me tell you, I stand, ladies and gentlemen, in defense of old John Calvin; I stand ready to commend Martin Luther, and to uphold the honesty and nobility of purpose of John Wesley; I respect likewise Alexander Campbell. But neither of these men died for me. I was baptized in the name of neither of them. Therefore, I am not a Calvinist nor a Lutheran; I am not a Wesleyan; I am not a Campbellite. This is no disrespect unto those men; but it is because of the fact that there is a name that is above every other name, there is a name that characterizes the Person that was led outside the city's walls and there crucified for my sins and for yours. When I walked down into the waters of baptism, I was not baptized in the name of Campbell, nor of Luther, nor of Wesley; but into the name of the spotless Son of God Divine. I am not married to Calvin, Luther, Wesley, nor Campbell. Therefore, I have no disposition whatever to honor them by wearing their names.

 

Let the world tonight take its stand upon the Bible as the authority of all religious procedure, under the appellation of a Christian, a member of the body of Christ, over which he reigns as head, and in which God's spirit must forever dwell.

 

I regret more than I can ever express to you the fact that after this movement of restoration had shaken this entire earth and made men sit up and take notice of the very fine principle, every plank of the platform of which was based upon a "Thus saith the Lord," by and by a very lamentable occurrence transpired, and that was the introduction into the service and worship of a thing untaught in the New Testament Scriptures. In the year 1869, in the city of St. Louis, there was injected into the church an instrument of music. The result was a division in what had been a happy, contented, united brotherhood. Its influence spread throughout the land, and about twenty-five or thirty years ago it struck our own beloved Tennessee. What was the result? The tears, the heartaches, the agonies, the sighs, and the prayers of godly, sainted, devoted people, men and women, have been overridden roughshod; and the result is division, even in the city of Nashville—division among people that ought to stand together.

 

Let me say to you to-night, as before God I must stand, I would rather be the man that walked out and injected the sword into the body of Christ on the cross than to be responsible for having injected into the spiritual body of Christ that which has torn it asunder. Question: Does the New Testament authorize said practice? Is it according to what the Bible says? Its most devoted and sincerest advocate will not so contend.

 

I want to say to you, without prolonging the argument, that it was a part of the restoration movement to handle aright and to rightly divide God's word into the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Where, then, do you find authority for instruments of music? Not in the New Testament, from Matthew to Revelation. "But," says one, "I find it back in the days of David and under the law of Moses."

 

I want to present to you an argument that I think has some logic in it. I march down the aisle tonight, posing as a Mormon of the old type, believing in polygamy, and I come to the borderland and want to pass over into the church of God. Some good brother says: "No, Mr. Hardeman, you must stop just there." Well, Why? "Because the New Testament does not authorize polygamy." But I say: "My dear sir, I remember that back in the days of David and Solomon and under the permission and toleration of God Almighty, men had a plurality of wives; and upon the authority and under the example of David, a man after God's own heart, let me pass in with my outfit." "O." he says, "there is no authority in that! We are not living under the same law." Well, all right; I will go back and come again. I have my dear, precious babe, my own child, bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; and I walk down and approach the New Testament church, the church founded on Pentecost, with the babe in my arms, and say: "Brethren, I want to unite with you, and then I want my baby to come likewise." You say: "O. no; hold a while there! The New Testament does not authorize the acceptance of infant membership." And then, with a courage bidding defiance, I say: "Sir, put your finger on the chapter and the verse where God says you must not." And you have to be as silent as a tomb. You say: "We are not going by what the Bible does not say, but by what it does say." I say: "Well, there were babies back in the Old Testament church under the Abrahamic covenant, and in the days of David there were babies in the assembly; let me bring them into the church." But you say: "No." And I try you on another argument. I pass clear over the church, and enter into the new Jerusalem, and call attention to the fact that there are babies in heaven, and that Christ said: "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." And I press that upon you. I say: "Brethren, if they were good enough under the Abrahamic covenant, if they are good enough to be in heaven, why not let me bring them into the church?" Let me say that no man can make one single argument in favor of instrumental music in the church that cannot be made in favor of infant membership. Name it. But some one says: "You are prejudiced against the babies." If you would come to my home, you would find to the contrary.

 

Well, let's try again. I walk down and approach the New Testament church with my animal sacrifice, with my incense pot, and I come to the border line and say: "Brethren, I want to come into the church with these." You say: "O. no!" "Well, why?" "God does not demand it." "Well," I say, "hasn't that been the order? Did not God authorize such in the days of David?" "O. yes; but we are living under a better covenant, founded upon a better promise."

 

My friends, it does seem to me useless, absolutely useless, to continue a line like unto this. According to the demand of every advocate thereof whom I have ever met, their statement is this: "Brother Hardeman, this is a minor thing. It ought not to be made so much of. I can either do it or not do it."

 

Since I have been in your city I heard a man say that he preached once for two churches—on one Sunday for one that had the instrument, and then the next Sunday for one that didn't have it; that he held prayer meeting for one that did have it on Wednesday night, and then held prayer meeting for one that didn't have it on Thursday night. If I felt that way about it and loved the cause of Christ and the unity of God's people, I would certainly advise its elimination from the service and worship of God.

 

Now, friends, with absolutely no unkindness, with no spirit of bitterness whatever, let me say that I cannot help but think that if people loved the union of God's children and the peace of professed followers of the Lamb as they should, they would be willing to lay aside anything not demanded that greater results might come to pass.

​

If in the city of Nashville the instrument of music, with its attendant matters, could be eliminated, what would be the result? The glad news would sweep over the country unto earth's remotest points, and such a joyful shout would go up as would push forward the cause of primitive Christianity as nothing else under heaven could. I pray God that he may speed the day when brethren may have enough love for God's word, respect for the truth, and love for the brethren that they will not have anything that tends to part the body of Christ. And I say to my brethren who have honored me so wonderfully and who all during my days have given me such fine recognition that, with all gratitude to them, if there is one single thing that they practice and insist upon that is serving to divide the body of Christ and I learn of it, I must say that I am done with them and must seek affiliation elsewhere.

 

But there is another thing that I must mention, because I do not want to prolong this talk hereafter—viz., instead of relying upon the church of God as heaven's own missionary institution, men have become wise above that which is written and they have taken unto themselves human societies and organizations, thereby supplanting the work of the church; and the worst evil is that the thing is founded purely upon dollars and cents. I have the constitution of the "American Christian Missionary Society," and Article No. 3 says this:

 

"Its membership shall consist of life directors, life members, annual members, delegates from churches of Christ, and delegates from States as follows—viz.: Any member of the church of Christ may become a life director of this society and a member of the general board by the payment of $100 in five annual installments; a life member, by the payment of $50 in five annual installments; or an annual member, by the payment of $5. Any congregation contributing $10 or more shall be entitled to one delegate in the annual meeting of this society for that year, and any State missionary board or society contributing a dividend from its State treasury for the objects of this society shall be entitled to two delegates in the annual meeting of the general society and to one additional delegate for every 5,000 disciples in the State."

 

The Lord Jesus Christ, if here on this earth and in the same financial condition he was in the long ago, could not become a member of that society. Why? He didn't even have enough money to pay his tax, much less to pay the initiation fee.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, it is wrong. Why ? Because, instead of being founded upon goodness and ability and intelligence and religion, it is based, every single entrance, upon a money consideration.

 

But what else? It proposes to hire the missionaries, to make the trade, to fix their compensation, and to direct their labors. The missionaries are responsible and amenable to this society. Where is the church? What is the prominent thing? A society unknown unto the word of God Divine. I beg of you, my brethren, to remember that the church of God is heaven's missionary institution. Let us not supplant it, but let us work through it, and through it alone. Let us not organize something unknown and unauthorized. Lay these aside, and take out from the service that which professedly and admittedly is not commanded of God; and leave off the human machinery, the overhead expense of which is immense. Then what ? Upon what God says I will strike hands and take a stand to live and die, and fight it out on that line, if it takes all the summers of our existence.

 

By so doing, a happy, prosperous, solid phalanx will march under the bloodstained banner of Prince Immanuel, with the sword of the Spirit as our weapon, until by and by this spiritual wickedness in high places will have to take to the realms of forgetfulness because of the forward march of God's united force.

 

But I have talked longer than I should. Let me ask of this splendid audience tonight, whose patience has been wonderfully extended, are there any present that want to become simply Christians? If so, will you put your hand in the wounded palm of the Savior? Will you accept the Bible, and that alone, as God's word? Will you become a member of the church of the New Testament, live and die under the shadow of Heaven's banner, and finally trust him for the fulfillment of his promise? Let us stand and sing.

​