The Sacred Import of the Christian Name # 2
It is but a due honor to Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, that all who profess His religion should wear His name alone. They pay an extravagant and even idolatrous compliment to His subordinate officers and ministers, when they take their denomination from them! Had this evil attitude prevailed in the primitive church, instead of the common name "Christians", there would have been as many party-names as there were apostles or eminent ministers!
Paul took pains to crush the first risings of this party spirit in those churches which he planted; particularly in Corinth, where it most prevailed. While they were saying, "I am of Paul; and I am of Apollos; and I am of Cephas; and I am of Christ!" Paul puts this pungent question to them: "Is Christ divided?" Are His servants the ringleaders of so many parties? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in or into the name of Paul - that you should be so fond to take your name from him!
Paul counted it a happiness that providence had directed him to such a conduct as gave no umbrage of encouragement to such an evil attitude. "I thank God," says he, "that I baptized none of you - but Crispus and Gaius: lest any should say, that I baptized in my own name, and was merely gathering a party for myself." (1 Cor. 1:12-15).
But alas! how little has this convicting reasoning of the apostle Paul - been regarded in the future ages of the church! What an endless variety of denominations have been derived from some leading men, or from some little theological peculiarities! What "denominations" have prevailed in the Christian world, and crumbled it to pieces, while the Christian name is hardly regarded!
Not to take notice of Jesuits, Jansenites, Dominicans, Franciscans, and other denominations and orders in the popish church, where having corrupted the whole Christian system - they act very consistently to lay aside the name.
But what party names have been adopted by the Protestant churches, whose religion is substantially the same common Christianity, and who agree in much more important articles - than in those in which they differ; and who therefore might peaceably unite under the common name of Christians! We have Lutherans, Calvinists, Armenians, Methodists, Churchmen, Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists - and a long list of names which I cannot now enumerate!
To be a Christian now is not enough - but a man must also be something more and better! That is, he must be an active bigot to this or that particular denomination. But where is the reason or propriety of all this? I may indeed believe the same things which Luther or Calvin believed - but I do not believe them on the authority of Luther or Calvin - but upon the sole authority of Jesus Christ, and therefore I should not call myself by their name, as one of their disciples - but by the name of Christ, whom alone I acknowledge as the Author of my religion, and my only Master and Lord!
If I learn my religion from one of these great men - then it is indeed proper that I should assume their name. If I learn it from an assembly of men, and make their beliefs the rule and ground of my faith - then it is enough for me to be of their religion, be that what it may then, with propriety be called a mere conformist; for that is my highest character! But I cannot be properly called a Christian - for a Christian learns his religion, not from an assembly of men, or from the determinations of councils - but from Jesus Christ and His Gospel!
To guard against mistakes on this head, I would observe that every man has a natural and legal right to judge and choose for himself in matters of religion; and that is a foolish person indeed, who unthinkingly accepts the teachings of any man, or body of men upon earth - whether pope, king, parliament, convocation, or synod.
Yet, in the exercise of this right and searching for himself, a serious person will find that he agrees more fully in lesser as well as more important articles - with some particular church than others; and thereupon it is his duty to join in stated communion with that particular church. And he may, if he pleases, assume the name which that church wears, by way of distinction from others; this is not what I condemn.
But for me to glory in the denomination of any particular church as my highest character; to lay more stress upon the name of a Presbyterian or a Churchman, than on the sacred name of Christian; to make a punctilious agreement with my sentiments in the little peculiarities of a certain church party - the test of all religion; to make it the object of my zeal to gain proselytes to some other name, than the Christian name; to connive at the faults of those of my own party, and to be blind to the good qualities of other churches; or invidiously to misrepresent or diminish them - these are the things which deserve universal condemnation from God and man! These proceed from a spirit of bigotry and faction - directly opposite to the generous universal spirit of Christianity, and subversive of it!
~Samuel Davies~
(continued with # 3)
No comments:
Post a Comment