Part 31

No materials except those worthy of God and of the precious foundation on which they are to be built, ought to be brought and laid there. Nothing but the pure and eternal truths of the faith revealed in the Scriptures ought to be preached as the doctrine of the Gospel and the Church. This was the ideal, perfect picture which stood out before the mind of the Apostle. But he also spoke of men placing perishable and vile materials upon the walls of God's building, using "wood, hay, stubble," substances unworthy to be made a part of Christ's spiritual temple. What did the Apostle mean by "wood, hay, and stubble"? The Church of Corinth, whom he addresses, had lost, so far as some of its members were concerned, that perfectness which ought to characterize the whole body. There was a working towards disunion. Envying and strife, factions, and a disposition to make this or that man the religious leader and guide, had been allowed to disturb the harmony of the congregation. The names of men had become watchwords. Parties rallied around Apollo, mistaking his eloquence for the Gospel to which it ought to lead; around Cephas, that is, Peter, because of his prominent position; around Paul, because he brought out certain doctrines into special prominence. And so, instead of regarding these men as doing each his own part in helping to maintain and preserve the whole truth, they foolishly set up this or that one, Apollo, or Peter, or Paul, as their favorite. Still, notwithstanding all these outworkings of a carnal or earthly spirit, there was as yet no rupture. The organic unity of all believers and builders remained unbroken. Individuals differed in opinions, but the Church had still only one creed. There were parties, but no denominations; factions, but no sects; strifes, but no schism. But even these cannot be allowed to disfigure the furnished temple, the Church of the final future. The Apostle looked beyond the poor work which narrow-minded men were doing at Corinth to the day when, as he tells in another place, that same Church which had been built upon the one foundation shall be presented to God, "not having spot or wrinkle," but "holy and without blemish." That day, he says, "will try every man's work, of what sort it is." Whatsoever is worthy of Christ, the solid and precious stone, shall abide, and the builder thereof shall have, along with eternal life, a reward due to his faithfulness to God's plan and design. But the human materials which unwise and ignorant workmen brought--all these shall be burned with the cleansing fire and go for nothing, but the builder himself shall be saved, because his own soul was built upon Jesus Christ, as the foundation of his faith and as his Redeemer. That is the meaning of the Apostle's solemn teaching. And now for the application.

That application may be made unto each Christian. We are all builders, and it is for us to use the proper materials. What is built upon Christ, from faith in Him and love to Him, according to His mind and the honor of His cause and Church, is "gold and silver and precious stones." What is done to serve self, the gratification of one's vanity and ambition, is to heap up stubble for themselves which cannot abide in the day of testing fire. But the more special application in accord with the text is that which pertains to the Church as a whole, of the various bodies of Christians, the many denominations of Christendom. Concerning these let us speak a few words, taking occasion, _I. to explain our position_, _II. to regard our duty in this respect_.

"Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." The Church is a building reared upon that foundation. Therefore, there is and can be but one Church. As the Apostle says in the Epistle-lesson: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," so he says there is _one body_. To rend the body of Christ, to divide His Church into different sects, where altar is set up against altar, ministry against ministry, is contrary to the will and purpose of its Founder. Some look amiably upon this Babel of beliefs and unbeliefs and counterbeliefs, think well of and would justify all so-called churches, consider one as good as another, and meekly settle down in the nearest, because "they are all aiming at the same end." This is not the teaching of the Bible nor the position of our Church. Not as if we read the members of these denominations out of the Church of Christ. We admit that they are built upon Christ, the Foundation, and we furthermore admit that they are building some gold, silver, and precious stones upon that foundation. To be more specific. Take the Roman Catholic Church. We have many things in common with the Catholic Church. It believes with us in the divinity of the Trinity, in the Godhead of Christ, in the personality of the Holy Ghost, in the divinity of the vicarious atonement, in the inspiration of the Scriptures. Far be it from me to contend that in the Catholic Church souls cannot be saved. Notwithstanding the many grave errors the Catholic Church has clung to up to this hour, it has produced characters, true, noble children of God, whose lives we may profitably study. Nearer to us stand the so-called Reformed Churches, by which term we understand the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, Baptists. With these Protestant Churches we have in common the great fundamental principles of the Reformation, namely, first: that the Word of God is the only source of religious knowledge and the only judge in matters of salvation, and secondly, justification before God by Christ through faith only. Thus it stands in the matter of doctrine; nor can we dispute that in matters of practical Christianity they are zealous, even putting us to blush. We all love to hear that the Bible is the most widely read book in the world. But to whose efforts is this mainly due? What little we do is far outdistanced by the work of societies principally supported by Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians.

We glory that we accept the whole Bible, but who studies the Bible as a whole most earnestly? I well know that we teach Bible History in our schools, and that we also have many earnest Bible readers, but if I could show you at greater length what is done for the study of the whole Bible by both young and old people in some of the churches mentioned, you would confess that at least many of our younger and older people are put to shame in this respect too. We point with satisfaction and pride to the mighty changes which the Gospel has wrought in heathen lands,--but who for the most brought them that Gospel of Christ? Who has footed the bills? We preach as no other church does that the grace of Christ is powerful to rescue the vilest, the most degraded sinners,--but who goes after them and labors the most extensively among them? Who, to mention one more

## particular, gives most liberally for the support of the Church and

for charity? Lutherans? Roman Catholics and others. Of course, it is not all gold that glitters, and splendid things could also be said to the glory of our Church. Who first gave the Bible to the people? Through whom has the whole Church been redeemed from the bondage of Antichrist? Who was the first to begin modern mission work? But our present purpose is to point out that the various Churches are, thank God, also adding gold, silver, and precious stones upon the foundation which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus. But is that all?--Fair-minded as we are to the one, should we be short-sighted as to the other, namely, that they are also building worthless, perishable material, material of their own human choosing, "wood, hay, and stubble"?

Who, enlightened by the plain Gospel, as it shines to us from every page of the sacred Book, can help but see that the errors of the Roman Catholic Church are many; that they seriously obscure the truth; that they lessen the merits of Christ; that, among the masses, they produce a mere formal religion devoid of soul and life? Their divinity of the Church, with its visible head upon earth, the Pope, of purgatory, mass, worship of the Virgin and the saints, indulgences, confessional,--are these not wood, hay, and stubble? And coming to the Reformed Churches, which of them believes in baptismal regeneration, accepts Baptism to be a christening? Which believes in the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament? Not one. Then, again, the Baptists insist, contrary to God's Word, that immersion is the only mode of baptism; he that has not been completely put under water has not been baptized. Likewise they sneer at infant baptism. The Episcopalian upholds as divine his form of church government,--so that, if a minister has not been ordained by an Episcopalian bishop, he is no minister. The Methodist overestimates the knowledge of one's conversion, and, like all of the Reformed Churches, cultivates a spirit of legalism, placing religion in such things as abstaining from intoxicants. The Presbyterian Church has never yet revoked the teaching of their catechism that God has elected certain persons to damnation, and insists upon its form of government as divine. "Wood, hay, and stubble," teachings and practices that are not according to the teachings of God in His Bible. What about them? The text declares that the fire will try the Christian work of all the ages. Every religious system not in harmony with God's will, all human speculations which men have woven around the truths of the Bible, all the wood and the stubble, though brought with pious hands and placed in sincerity upon the one foundation, shall turn to ashes and wither like grass. And yet, because of that foundation, and the faith of those who wrought thereupon, they themselves shall be saved. We would distinguish between sectarian systems and the individuals gathered under them. We recognize the unity of all Christians as believers in Christ, but we can never recognize these divisions of Christ's spiritual body. That would be sanctioning the "wood, hay, and stubble."

What, then, is our duty--to come to the second consideration--in this respect? So sensitive, my beloved hearers, have people become these days that when a clear Scriptural presentation of this matter is given, they will stop up their ears, and without giving thought or attention, will say: illiberal, uncharitable, bigoted! We are none of these. Not illiberal; we are just as liberal as God's plain Word permits us to be. We are not uncharitable;--the greatest charity is to tell a person the greatest amount of truth. And as to the charge of bigotry, that shows so much ill-feeling and bad judgment that we dismiss it without comment.

The truth is, that, guided by the Bible, we cannot justify and hold fellowship with religious societies that teach doctrines contrary to the Bible, without sinning in a twofold way. First, we would mislead our own people to believe that the differences are of no fundamental character, that it makes no difference whether you believe that Christ's body and blood are in the Sacrament, or not, whether children are baptized and regenerated in baptism, or not, and so forth. That would be practically denying the faith; and secondly, by fellowshiping with these denominations, we would be endorsing their errors, and arouse the impression that it makes little or no difference whether they believe in the Bible, or not.

When a man builds a house, he is very much on the alert that no shoddy, inferior material enters into the building; not one joint or door but it should measure up to the specifications. Strange that in the infinitely more important building of Christ's Church, people should be so indifferent as to the material and of things measuring up to the specifications of God's Word, and allow "wood, hay, and stubble" to take the place of gold, silver, and precious stones.

God protect us against indifference. And then, to conclude, the members of what Church are we? The character, legitimacy, and proper Christianity of a church is its true, clear, unmistakable confession of the doctrines of the Scripture, and it is our right to say that these doctrines are embraced, held, and taught by us, and were thus held and taught by us before any of the multitudinous sects and

## parties about us had a being. The Mother of Protestantism,--what

church is it? It was born, existed, and was mighty in strength before them all, and upon them rests the burden of proof and apology for their separate being. And we should go borrowing to them, or hesitate to speak a modest word in our favor?

My Church, my Church, my dear old Church! I love her ancient name, And God forbid a child of hers Should ever do her shame. Her mother-care I'll ever share, Her child I am alone, Till He who gave me to her arms Shall call me to His own.

Amen.

EIGHTEENTH SUNDAY AFTER TRINITY.

And Elijah came unto all the people and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.--_1 Kings 18, 21._

It was a remarkable, but wise decision that King Solomon once rendered in a difficult case which was brought before him. Two women came to him with an infant to which they both asserted a mother's claim, the one contending that the other had overlaid her child, and taken hers from her before she was awake, and laid her own dead child in its place, whilst the other asserted that the contrary was the truth, saying, "The dead child is hers, and the living is mine." And now it was for the King to decide. But how was it to be done? Solomon calls for a sword. "Divide," he commands, "the living child in two, and give half to the one and half to the other." Then spake, says the Holy Record, the woman whose the living child was unto the King, for her bowels yearned upon her son, "O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it." But the other said, "Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it." Solomon instantly recognized the true mother's heart. "Give her the child," he said. The same it is with God, our true heavenly Parent. He does not want His children divided; He will have them entirely, as a whole living sacrifice, or not at all. The sum of His commandment and will regarding us, as repeated in to-day's Gospel lesson, is: "Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with _all_ thy heart, and with _all_ thy soul, and with _all_ thy mind." Of that would we remind ourselves in our present worship, taking for our instruction the Scripture read as our text.

With the aid of the Holy Spirit we note Elijah's challenge on Mount Carmel,--_A call to Christian decision_. _I. The question at issue: "Is the Lord God?"_ _II. The obligation involved, "Then follow Him."_

Israel had had many wicked kings since the suicide of its first monarch, Saul, upon Mount Gilboa, but none more so than Ahab. The crowning iniquity of this unprincipled and despicable prince was the introduction of the idol called Baal into Israel. Baal signifies governor or ruler, and was the name given in the East to the chief male idol of the heathen. To the honor of this idol, temples were erected, bloody sacrifices offered, and the most shameful things perpetrated. Ahab had married Jezebel, the daughter of the idolatrous King of the Sidonians, and under her sway the worship of this idol had become sinfully popular in Israel. Four hundred and fifty priests served at his altar, and nearly an equally large number were appointed to the worship of his mate, Ashtaroth, for every male idol was wont to have his goddess. This abominable form of idolatry was going on in the land where God had thundered from the sides of Sinai as His first requirement: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," and had declared: "My glory will I not give to another, nor my praise to graven images"; and in consequence the judgments of Jehovah were not slow to follow. No rain or dew had fallen for the space of three years, the heaven was as brass, and the earth like a nether grindstone.--Famine stalked throughout the land, when one day, as Ahab was wandering up and down the country searching for food, he met the stern and fearless prophet of Jehovah, Elijah, called the Tishbite. "Art thou he," asks the King, "that troubleth Israel?" Elijah retorts: "Not I have troubled Israel, but thou and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandment of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim."

And so the contest is on, not so much between Elijah and Ahab as between the supremacy of Jehovah and Baal. How is the dispute to be settled? Elijah proposes a method. All Israel should be convened at a place specified, Mount Carmel. Two altars were to be erected, one by the champions of Baal, another by himself. Sacrifice was to be laid thereupon, and the God that would answer by fire to devour the sacrifice should be recognized victor. The test is accepted. You, as well-informed Bible readers, know the outcome. After futile attempts by the priests of Baal to secure the hearing of their God, Elijah addresses his God. In fervent prayer he raises his eyes and hands and heart to heaven. No sooner had the last words escaped the prophet's lips than down came the fire of God consuming the whole sacrifice and the wood, the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench, whilst the fickle people fell on their faces, crying: "The Lord, He is God; the Lord, He is God." Elijah then follows up his victory by commanding them to seize the whole group of Baal's priests and slay them at the brook Kishon. Thus did Jehovah terribly and surely vindicate His honor and majesty.

What lesson may be gathered from this thrilling story? Beloved, the conflict between the forces of the true God and His opponents is not yet over, and, as of old, that conflict, in the final issue, centers in a question. At that time it was, "Is Jehovah the Lord God?" Formulated by the Lord Himself in the Gospel-lesson of this day, it now reads: "What think ye of Christ? Whose Son is he?" Or, in other words, Is He, Jesus Christ, God? Around that question are rallied the religious forces of to-day. The answer to that question determines men's attitude, their position on the one side or on the other; their answer to that question decides the destiny of every individual soul. According as the Gospel of Jesus Christ is accepted or rejected, will men stand or fall. What is it in its significance but the conflict of Mount Carmel over again? And how is this vital question to be decided? For the determining of the question, "Is Jesus Christ God?" there are many proofs, all of them conclusive and incontrovertible. We might point to Christ's spotless character and His immaculate life. "Which of you," He challenged His enemies, "convinceth me of sin?" And none who has ever examined into His life and character but is unstinted in His admiration and praise. "He was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners"; He was divine. We could point furthermore to His teaching. Merely human mind and merely human lips never conceived and spake as He spake. As you study our Lord's utterances, what loftiness in His maxims, what profundity of wisdom in His discourses! The hearers of His time were constrained to exclaim, "Never man spake as this man speaketh," and He taught as one having authority and not as the scribes. No wonder, for He was the teacher come from God,--He was God.

We could point out the divine influence His religion has exerted upon the world. Why do the nations write 1912 in the enumeration of time? Who has taken possession of everything great and grand in our age? Rather, should I say, who has made that which is great and grand in art, in music, in literature--the masterpieces, the sublimest productions? Whom do they treat of? The civilization of to-day--whose product is it but of His religion? thus stamping it and its Founder as divine, as God.

But, my beloved, after all these and manifold other proofs have been adduced, there remains one more which, more than any other proof, brings home to us the conviction that Christ is God, not only intellectually, but morally, spiritually. From the scene upon Mount Carmel I would direct you to a scene upon another mount, Mount Calvary. There, too, we witness a sacrifice; there, too, lies a victim upon an altar, the altar of the cross. The fire of God's wrath comes from heaven to consume that sacrifice. How is that a proof of Christ's divinity? Because it solves, as nothing else can solve, the great problem of Religion, "How can man be saved, justified before God?" "No man can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him." It required one more than mere man to do that--God Himself. What man can look upon that Calvary scene and contemplate the significance of it, but exclaim with the Roman centurion under the cross, "Truly, this was the Son of God,"--nor gaze upon the print of the nails in His hands, and the mark of the spear gash in His side, but confess, with the multitude upon Mount Carmel, "Jehovah--Jesus, He is the God! Jehovah--Jesus, He is the God!" There is no proof so powerful that Christ is God but the sacrifice of Calvary; yea, he who accepts not that sacrifice, together with the resurrection of Christ, believes not in Christ. That Old Testament scene and sacrifice points, and is a type, of the New Testament scene and sacrifice. May the impression and the confession it produced be the same on the lips of every one of us, as it was yonder on Mount Carmel,--"The Lord, even Christ, is God. He is my God."