3.09 - THE REFORMATION, NO. 2

THE REFORMATION, NO. 2 This is a magnificent audience assembled, and your very presence indicates the interest you have in those things thus far discussed. I called attention in ~ sermon preceding this, to the great Reformation of the sixteenth century. The fundamental cause of this was, doubtless, the Renaissance—that period of transition in Europe from the mediaeval to the modern world. Evidences of this are found in Italy even in the fourteenth century. The zenith, however, was not reached until two hundred years later.

Students of science, philosophy, and religion began to find out about the cause of things. The Bible, kept from the people for so long a time, was earnestly investigated. Superstition and darkness passed away and all things were viewed in a new light. Two great fundamental principles were enunciated. First, the right of private judgment. Every man could read and interpret the sacred volume for himself and according to his understanding. The second principle was that when the Bible was studied, union among Christians was possible. In the great Reformation, Martin Luther led the way in open defiance of the papacy, but instead of turning back to original principles, he sought simply a reformation of the things that then existed. As a result, he was ax-communicated, and soon after started the first of our modern denominations which have cursed the land from that day till this.

John Calvin followed Luther in opposition to Catholicism, and founded the Presbyterian church in 1535. Under various names his doctrine spread rapidly all over western Europe. The influence of Luther and Calvin, the charge of immorality against the clergy, the political feeling against the pope~ll tended to rob him of his power and lessen his prominence everywhere.

I next call attention to Henry VIII, king of England from 1509 to 1547. He was a devout Catholic, and made such all able reply to Luther’s attacks that he was, by the pope, called the "Defender of the Faith." His fame spread abroad throughout the regions of Catholicism, and he was the most favored emperor under the authority of the pope.

He had a lot of trouble with his wives, and the story regarding these relations is disgusting in its nature. He first married Catharine of Aragon, Spain, his brother Arthur’s wife. He lived with her eighteen years, and by her became the father of six children, of whom all had died except Mary. Under the camouflage and excuse that she could not possibly become the mother of a male child who might inherit the throne, he one day told Catharine that their marriage was illegal and they were living in sin. He asked that it be revoked, but, of course, you would hardly expect his wife to agree with such a statement. Old Henry thought that all he had to do was just issue the decree, and his desires would come to pass.

Now the real cause of such all idea’s having entered his head was not his wonderful interest in his wife’s becoming the mother of a boy baby, but there was a young girl of nineteen summers in waiting at the court by the name of Anne Boleyn and with her he had become enamored, and he sought, therefore, under the excuse aforesaid, to get rid of his legal wife.

Now, it was a fact that he was married to Catharine by a special order of Pope Julius II, and he had all idea that the then reigning pope, Clement VII, would readily issue a decree by which his marriage to her would be annulled. But there were two difficulties that presented themselves. First, it would have put Clement VII in the attitude of reversing a decree that the former pope had made. This is against the theory of Catholicism, even if their practice has varied time and again. But there was another reason. Charles V was emperor of Spain at that time, and he was a nephew of Henry’s wife. Of course, he sided with his aunt, and, therefore, matters were complicated, with the result that Clement delayed and deferred a rendition of his decision. But you know (by observation, of course) that love will find a way. When Henry could no longer exercise patience to wait for a decree of the pope, he finally took religious matters in his own hand, appointed Thomas Cranmer archbishop of Canterbury, and then made him write out a bill of divorcement. This being done, the pope was forced to render a decision. This was against Henry who was, therefore, axcommunicated on the charge of adultery.

He resolved to break with the Roman church. The time was propitious for such all act. He immediately set out to have Parliament pass some laws according to his own fancy. I presume you know what was done. The first bill that went through Parliament along this line was to the effect that Henry VIII was made the only head on earth of the Church of England. The second law stated that there is all absolute separation on the part of the Anglican church from the papacy in any form. The third was that any man was guilty of treason who denied the rights of Henry VIII as head of the church. By the passage of this and other acts, the Church of England or the Episcopal church, was born in 1535.

I sometimes meet with my Episcopal friends, and have them say that it is rather unkind for me to declare that the Episcopal church started under conditions like these. But, my friends, you have got to change every history on earth if you destroy the correctness of that idea. Even after the Church of England was established, it was, in sentiment, as much Catholic as ever before. Henry began what is styled the High Church in Episcopal circles, and that is but a step from Catholicism itself, as a further study will show. The Book of Common Prayer was adopted in 1552. The first revision of it was ten years later, and then there came a second revision 100 years later, namely, in 1662. This little booklet contains 39 articles of faith, and it has been the guide of Episcopalians on down the line.

There has recently been quite a bit of agitation regarding a revision of the creed, and that agitation has stirred up the Episcopal Church of England, and has not been unheard of in the realms of the same on this side of the Atlantic.

During the latter part of last year, 1927, that bill introduced in Parliament to revise the Prayer Book made splendid progress, and came almost finding its way through the last ordeal. If you want to know exactly the route that was taken, it was after this fashion: That bill had gone before two houses of the convocation, back then to the bishops, then to the church assembly, and from that to the ecclesiastical committee of Parliament, and likewise through the House of Lords.

It got by all of those and there was just one more body for it to pass. When it came to the House of Commons it failed. Leading champions were on either side; the controversy waxed bitter; and a great threat was made that the Episcopal Church might be rent from top to bottom.

Let me say to you, friends, I have no disposition on earth to misrepresent matters of historic nature. Such misrepresentations would reflect upon me and lessen confidence in my statements. The English church, the Episcopal Church, is purely a state church. It is governed by politics, and is as much a creature of the general assembly or Parliament as any other law ever passed in England. No power on earth had the right, in the first place, to get up a ritual, or a prayer book, except the British Parliament, and there lives not one today who has the right to change one letter, even the crossing of a "t" or the dotting of all "I" except the Parliament which sits on the bank of the classic Thames.

Friends, the British Parliament is made up of different sorts of folks. Some of the members are, of course, members of the Church of England, some are Catholics, some are Jews, and some are Muhammadans. I want you to think of that religious conglomeration. Before any act affecting the Prayer Book can pass, not only the Jew, but likewise the Mohammedan, has got to vote upon it. Can you see this? It might come to pass that the balance of power in that British Parliament rests with the Jews, and it might be theirs to cast the deciding vote. Hence, it is possible for a Jew to fix upon the Episcopal Church the doctrine, policy and practice for lo, many years to come. But that is not all.

It might, perchance, come to this, that the Mohammedan members would exercise the controlling vote. Now, notwithstanding the fact that they reject Christ as the chief prophet, and substitute the Koran for the Bible, it could be that they might determine the doctrine and practice of the Episcopal church. The whole matter of revision leaves God out of it; Christ has no voice; the apostles’ tongues are still; and the Holy Spirit is all unknown character.

There never was a greater human ritual fastened upon a body of people than is the Episcopal Prayer Book—a product of the British Parliament. We should not be surprised at their troubles in England.

Even in America that same trouble threatens the Episcopacy of this land. I have here this week’s Literary Digest, in which there are two pages on the very point I have mentioned, threatening the disruption of the Episcopalian church in America.

It is their custom to meet in general council every three years. In 1925 the general conference of the Episcopal church in America met in the City of New Orleans, and a majority voted to revise the prayer book. But before that vote can be made legal, and the verdict be fastened, it must be ratified by the next conference, which will meet next October in the city of Washington.

There are in the United States 72 dioceses of the Episcopal Church. Already 45 of these dioceses have circulated a petition among the membership and they are coming to Washington with their very best efforts to prevent the passage of that resolution of three years ago.

Episcopalianism, in this country, is divided into two classes. There is what is known as the Low Church. It is quite liberal in its views and recognizes almost all Protestants as branches of the true church. And then there is what is called the High Church, or the Anglican Church. It is practically a Catholic church in its essential features. The strange thing about these two branches is that, notwithstanding they are so different, they are under one bishop and one control. Let me tell you about it.

Up here at Monteagle there is a Low Episcopal church. At Sewanee another Low church, and at Tracy City still another. But right in the midst of them, not over five or six miles away, at St. Andrews, there is a High Episcopal church. The St. Andrews church practices auricular confession; it holds its mass as do the Catholics; it practices celibacy; and right in this week’s Digest there is a picture of the "Father" up here at St. Andrews, Tenn., bearing the order of the Holy Cross, and in that reliquary he has one of the hairs from the head of old Charles I, a relic he is worshiping.

Perhaps some may say I ought not to talk about those folks. But they are talking about themselves. Here is the Literary Digest that goes to millions, and in this week’s copy, the story is told. Buy one of them and see the picture of that hair from the beard of old Charles I. The Bishop of Tennessee exercises authority over Sewanee, Monteagle, Tracy- City, and likewise At. Andrews, but, it seems, no condemnation of such acts has been pronounced.

If I were the bishop and thought the At. Andrews church wrong, I would be certain to speak out against it. But I don’t think any less of Episcopalians than I do of any other religious order unknown to the Book of God. There is but one difference between the High Episcopal church and the rankest Catholic church in Tennessee or America. What is it? It is simply this: the Catholic church believes that the pope exercises supreme power; the High Episcopal church says, and I think correctly, "Our bishop has got as much power as your pope." You eliminate that difference, and the two could easily blend.

I say these things because I think they are true. These bodies are posing as religious organizations, when, as a matter of fact, they are purely political and governmental products, subject to powers civil rather than religious. In the year 1608, the first Baptist church on earth was born in Holland, and in 1611 another sprang up in England. In 1639, Roger Williams planted another at Providence, R. I.

I know, as well as you, that our Baptist friends have tried to establish a line of succession from the present back to the days of John the Baptist. Some have imagined they could make the chain rattle all the way, but, as a matter of fact, they never did hear it. But be it said to their credit that the most learned and intelligent, the most scholarly of the Baptist preachers no longer try to prove the unprovable idea of Baptist church succession. Long since the higher type has given up such hopes. Whenever you hear of any man’s making these claims, you may assume that he is a partisan of the deepest dye, and hates to give up that which must be done in the light of intelligence and historic references.

There never was but one Baptist recognized by God on earth, and he said plainly that he was going to quit. In John 3:30, the Baptist said, "I must decrease." A record of any other Baptists must be found in some other book than the Bible.

Baptist doctrine is made up of Calvinistic theology plus congregational government. There is not a single distinctive doctrine taught by the Baptists necessary to salvation, they themselves being judges. As a religious organization they are wholly unknown to God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Baptist preachers know that just as well as I do. The only difference is that I will say it and they won’t. Everybody knows those things. Why should I be forbidden to tell this great audience, of possibly six thousand, matters of this kind?

Now the next in chronological order is the great Methodist church. I speak of it candidly but with feelings of absolute respect. Some of my people lived and died Methodists, as well as Baptists and Presbyterians. I have nothing unkind to say regarding any individual, but I am talking about the doctrine, or rather, the church as a whole.

Methodism is a by-product of Episcopalianism. It is a step which was first taken, not to establish something new, but to overcome the coldness and ritualism that prevailed in the Episcopal church.

Methodism centers around John Wesley. As all ordained deacon in the Episcopal church, he looked over the field in 1725 and saw the coldness, formality and emptiness in the services and undertook to bring about a reformation of conditions. He thought the church needed some warmth and spirituality injected into its cold and almost lifeless, frozen form. So, together with three other young men, namely, Charles Wesley, Robert Kirkham and William Morgan, he met, and they began to think over it and meditate upon it, with the result that others joined them and their meetings continued. Their purpose was not, I repeat, to start a new organization, but because Episcopalians refused to be reformed, such was the result. The history, therefore, of Methodism traces back to the year 1729. At that time, Wesley was all unconverted man. He declared that he did not receive forgiveness of sins until 1738—nine years after Methodism was born on the earth.

Maybe some of you people would like to know where you can find these statements. Bishop McTyeire, of the Methodist church, has written a history of Methodism. You can secure it from the Methodist Publishing Co., here on Broad street. On page 125 he reports what I have said regarding John Wesley’s unconverted condition at the time Methodism was founded.

It wasn’t determined as to what kind or character of church the Methodists should be until the year 1784. At that time it had developed and grown to be so much like its mother, that it was decided to let it bear her name. Hence, it is the Methodist Episcopal church.

Again, the Methodist discipline is but all abridgment of the Episcopalian prayer book. While the latter has 39 articles of faith, the Methodist discipline has 20 and 5. That discipline is revised every four years’ and it is doubtful if any two issues are exactly alike. They not only change the rules and polity, but sometimes the doctrine itself.

Until 1910, the Methodist discipline taught that all men were not only conceived, but that they were born, in sin. Let me recite to you some things with which you are perfectly familiar. When a good mother brings her baby up to be baptized by the Methodist preacher, he turns to his little book—not the Bible, for he has no use for it at all—but he turns to his discipline and begins to read: "Dearly beloved, for as much as all men are conceived and born in sin, and that our Saviour Christ hath said, Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God: I beseech you to call upon God the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of His bounteous goodness He will grant to this child, now to be baptized with water, that which by nature he cannot have; that he may be baptized with the Holy Ghost, received into Christ’s holy church and be made a lively member of the same."

Then the preacher says, "Let us pray," and he reads this prayer from that discipline: "O merciful God, grant that the old Adam in this child may be so buried, that the new man may be raised up in him," etc. He then asks the mother to "name this child." She calls him "Goliath" and the preacher either sprinkles or pours water upon it (or, if desired, immerses it in water). That was Methodism until 1910. In that good year, at their regular conference, they changed their doctrine on the question of depravity and original sin. When they now go to sprinkle a baby, the preacher reads as follows from his changed discipline: "Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men, though fallen in Adam, are born into this world in Christ the Redeemer, heirs of life eternal, and subjects of the saving grace of the Holy Spirit; and that our Saviour Christ saith, ’Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God,’ I beseech you to call upon God the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of His bounteous goodness He will so grant unto this child, now to be baptized, the continual replenishing of His grace, that he may ever remain in the fellowship of God’s holy church, by faith that is in Jesus Christ." You will observe that all babies born before 1910, were not only born but even conceived in sin and to their case John 3:5 applied, but all born since 1910 are born into this world in Christ, the Redeemer, and heirs of eternal life. To them Matthew 19:14 applies.

What was the former passage quoted? John 3:5, which says, "Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God." If that does not refer to baptism I would like to ask the Methodist preachers, why did you put it in your creed and make it the only scripture upon which you relied for 150 years? In John 8:5, the term water is found, but to a Methodist now, that passage is bone-dry. In Matthew 19:14, the word water does not occur, and yet a Methodist preacher can find enough to sprinkle all the babies on earth. But again, the Methodist church never decided that it would have presiding elders until the year 1792.

Regarding the Lord’s Supper, Wesley wrote: "I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbury to be joint superintendents over our brethren in North America; as also Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey to act as elders among them by baptizing and administering the Lord’s supper. . . . . . . .I also advise the elders to administer the supper of the Lord on every Lord’s Day."

There are but two consistent ideas about that, viz: Either partake of it on the first day of the week, or, like the Catholics, keep it forever ready. There is absolutely no authority for the observance of the supper every month, or three months, six months, or at any other period than the first day of the week.

Friends, the presiding elders of the Methodist church scarcely miss a Sunday during the year but that they eat of the Lord’s supper. Why not insist that Methodists do likewise?

Consistency is claiming their attention along this line. But that is not all regarding matters of this sort. There are, in this land of ours, seventeen different kinds of Bapfists, likewise, seventeen different sorts of Methodists, but you know, and they know, and will admit it when directly pressed, that each of them is a total stranger to God’s Book. The Bible knows nothing about Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists or Methodists. Do I become your enemy because I so speak?

I tell you no secret whatsoever when I say to you, friends, that in this Bible no such organizations are mentioned. No such bodies are even one time referred to. It is not possible for it to be possible for the world to get together upon anything of a nature like these organizations or bodies, the history of which I have recited in your midst.

Therefore, I think the call comes ringing o’er the restless waves, and across the regions of our land, for us to halt, to examine our platforms, and take our bearings according to His word. Our divided state is indeed lamentable. Men exalt their creeds, discipline and confessions of faith—all of which were written by uninspired men. We need to lift up the Word of God, and raise aloft the gospel of Christ as distinguished from the doctrines of men. The creeds of earth may be written by intelligent, honest and upright men, but they are human products. We have given unto us that which is a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path. All scripture is given by inspiration to the intent that the man of God may be perfect, in that he is thoroughly furnished unto every good work.

I want no doctrine other than that which I can read in the Bible. I need no reproof other than that the Holy Spirit has given. I need no correction other than that penned by inspiration. I need no instruction in righteousness, but that found in the Word of God, which thoroughly equips and perfectly furnishes unto every good work. Upon the Word of God as our only creed, we ought to form a solid phalanx against the onrushing tide of infidelity.

I believe that God expects and demands of us to blend our forces, combine our efforts, and centralize our powers against the dangers that are threatening the youth of our land, and are seeking to undermine the very foundation of our hallowed hopes, and our holiest desires, both for time and for eternity.

Let me say that the opposition is not on top of the Church of God, seeking to tear down its loftiest spires; nor is it on the sides, trying to tear down the walls; but, with pick and with shovel in hand, it is digging away at the very foundation. That foundation is the sublime truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. That truth is denied and ridiculed in schools and institutions built and maintained by taxes that come from the pockets of professed Christian men. And while we pay the price and furnish the children, the enemy is pouring into their young heads and hearts the damnable doctrine that will tear down that institution for which Christ died. The skeptic would destroy the hopes of those of us who live here, and blight our prospects of wearing a glittering crown in that land of cloudless day.

Because of my faith in God’s Book, I am here in your midst. The congregations supporting this meeting believe in that institution which rests upon the great truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. We desire to teach only that which is found in the Book of God. I think I can pledge you 100 per cent of our number to forsake any doctrine or practice not so found. If you will suggest one thing in His Word which I do not preach, or try to practice, I want to incorporate that, not next week, not tomorrow, but I would be glad to do it yesterday, if such a thought were possible.

I want to be able to put my hand upon the very chapter and the very verse on which my hopes for eternity rest. I am, therefore, asking of you to accept no leader but Christ; subscribe to no discipline, prayer book or confession of faith but God’s Word; be nothing except just a Christian; do nothing other than that which you know that God specifically demands; practice only those things authorized by the God of heaven; and then, with your hand in the wounded palm of His, sing the song, "Through floods and flames, if Jesus leads, I will follow all the way."

If you and I will so do, we can, at last, lean upon His everlasting arms, and know that He will initiate us into the grandeurs and glories of that blissful home across which the shadows have never yet been cast.

I wonder, tonight, if there are not others who will gladly accept the invitation while we hymn his praises.