The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-01-16

I
first place, he would not meet chem, and he
| did not meet them, by calling on people 10
unite in agreement on the Bible; and he
| could not have done 1.-THE Bible did not
/ exist. The Old Testament existed, tut he
] could not have called on them to agree with
the Old Testament because he said over
| and over again in other epistles and else
| where In those epistles that they we're not
| bound by the requirements of the Old les
/ lament, that they were freed from the
law, and the law constituted the larger
| part of the Old Testament He could
| not possibly have brought them together on
/ the basis of accepting the Old Iestament
! as final and absolute authority, and he
| certainly could not have brought them to-
| gether on the basis Of accepting the New
| Testament as final authority, for the New
! Testament did not exist. 1t dzd not exist
| in it's present form, certainly, until about
| the first OF the second century. 1g co tt
! not have made acceptance OF the BlDie tne
| basis of a union of all parties In the chuIch
! of Christ. And he could not nave mace
| unity of organization, for, as we nave dl-
ready seen, there was no unity of organiza-
! ton. There was no pope there was no
| Episcopal organization, there was no Tres.
/ byterian organization. There were a great
/ many different forms, different organlza-
| tons, in different localities. He dld not
make them. and he could not nave En- mage t6ss
/ sacraments the basis. He does not mentlon
the Lords supper in this connection And.
! though he mentions baptism, II Is 10 olsHiss
! ii with a wave of the hand. 1 baptize no
/ body he says. And then he says, on, yes;
L did baptize Stephanas And then ne
| tied anybodv else or not. but / did not
come to baptize.' 1t is not by baptism, It is
| not by the sacraments, it is not by these
/ that he would unite these warning factions.
! Neither by Bible, by sacrament, by church
organization nor by creed. lie expressly
| and explicitly disavows uniting men py
creed He says that it is not by philosophy,
not by wisdom, not by any putting To-
| gether of doctrines that the church Is 70 DC
! united. He would not say, as some
! times is said in our time, that denomina-
lions are a blessing, and we must have
| Congregationalist and BaptlstS ana
Methodists and Episcopalians and so on TO
| the end of the chapter-150 OF them, peslqe
various Independent organizations tnat 90
not have any particular name, In TINS coun E5
| try alone No: he would not have SAID
| that for he says, with urgency the pouy
of Christ must not be divided; It must not
| be rent in twain; there must not be these
| factions and these parties; you must not
! be separated He does indicate now ne
| would prevent division. 1T is very simple
| There is one foundation Christ Jesus Now
| go back to your old message and your ola
| loyalty. He holds 1t all up in this one WORD,
| L beseech you, brethren, by the name 8tnat
| is. in the authority Of our Lord Jesus
! Christ that We all speak the same thlng.
and that there be no DIVISIONS aonf YOU,
| the same mind, and in the same Judgment.
| What does this mean? Why, it means TINS;
message of a Christ that came to the world,
| that lived, that suffered that dleu; CO. give
that message; see Hm h nied not 1ti' in
! your PHILOSOPHERS not in your intellectual
| opinions not in your theories, not IN your
methods of administration; be united IN
| this; that you are all founded on Christ
! Jesus and are all trying TO 90 ChTlst
work in Christs way. See Him, proclaim
| Thought of Him. in the same judgment, in
! the same purpose and spirit, in your ac-
| tivity. -
ATTEMPTS TO UNITE SECTS.
| ST am trying tonight simply to act as an
interpreter and it would take me too far
4 -; 10 how. llStOr-
| ically, the attempt to unite the church in
either of these other ways has invariably
! proved a failure We have tried 20 unite
! by accepting the Bible as an authority
Protestants-and we are split up into in
| Vulnerable sects. We have tried to unite on
| a recognition of one church order and or
ganization and there are at least three
| Episcopal churches-three, that is that rec
| ognize an historic Episcopate. we nave
| tried by creedS and every single creed, with
| the possible exception or the apoStes
| creed has been framed, not for the pur-
| pose Of uniting, but for the purpose or sep
| arating and dividing. The creed has been
| a fence built to divide parties, not a broad
| foundation on which they might all unite.
There have grown up in this church OF
| Corinth not only factions and divisions, but
| gross immoralities. 1t is pretty difficult FOR
| us in the nineteenth century to reallze now
| wide was the separation in the pagan lands
| between religion and morality. alluded to
some aspects of this last Sunday night; to
the fact for instance t5e ode sna' time mot It
| is a shame to get drunk, except
| in a feast of the gods;' to the fact that
| there were a thousand prostitutes, conse-
| Grated prostitutes, in one of the temples in
| the city of Corinth. Indeed. the pagan re-
| ligion as l said last winter with some en-
! phasis, differs from the Hebrew religion in
! nothing more than in this. The object of the
pagan religion is never to make men pet
re lever to tn make so mem Better The Object Of
| pagan religion is generally either to
| placate an angry god or to bribe cor
rupt one, and the angry. god could be pla-
| Gated and the corruptible one could be
| bribed without regard to the moral char
acter of the worshiper So the forms OF
| from morality, but they often became
grossly immoral-so grossly immoral that
their immortality cannot SO much as be de-
| And these gross immoralities connected
| with the temples and the pagan worship of
Corinth had crept into the Christian
| Church.
ATTITUDE TOWARD IMMORTALITY.
And the argument for them was the ar
| gument that has often been heard since:
| The body is mere transient dwelling place.
| The man is not soiled because the body is
| soiled This was the argument As a man
| is not made leprous because his house is
| leprous, so he is not made leprous because
| his body is leprous. A pure soul may dwell
| in an evil body. That was the argument
then That is the argument which has been
| heard even in our own time. 1 think it has
| been heard by some missionaries Of foreign
| religions, implicitly. if not explicitly, stated
| in very recent times. The advocates and
| apologists and defenders of immortality
made bold to cite Paul himself. Christian
| ity, they said is freedom. We are set free
from the law, and therefore there is no
longer any law, thou shalt not steal and
thou shalt not commit adultery. These
laws are abolished. Am / not free to do
what l will? Paul meets this incurSion of
immortality into the Christian religion with
stern and fiery indignation. Observe he
his false opinion; he Heyer suggests to turn
him out for his heresies; he never suggests
to close the door upon him because his
creed is untrue But is he immoral? He
never suggests to turn him on question
of doubtful truth; he never suggests to
eXcommunicate him because he does not
agree with his neighbor on a question of
frankly immoral They have, Paul says.
nothing to do with him.
g. I wrote unto YOU in an epstle not to COM
pany with fornicators;
10. Yet not altogether with the fornicators OF
this world, with the covetous, extortoners,
with idOlatorS; for then must We needs 10 out
of the world
II. But now I have written unto you not to
keep company, If any man that is called brother
be a fornicator COY etous or an idolator, or
railer drunkard, or an eXtortiOner; with such
a no not to eat.
I'VE cannot say that this indignant wrath
against immortality is not new. Nor can we
say that, in later times than Pauls, religion
and morality have not been often separated.
Some of you will remember the story of
! fore), of the seventeenth century concern
| ing whom an eminent historian of that CEN