by Rev. James S. Sinclair
Separation from an Unsound Church viewed in the Light of Scripture
In the present article we shall endeavour to answer one or two objections which have been made from the New Testament against separation from unsound Churches.
One of these objections has been based upon the example of Christ. Objectors point out that Christ continued in the Jewish Church until His death, notwithstanding its corruptions, and that consequently the faithful ought to remain in corrupt Churches. Now, this argument, to say the least, proves too much. It proves that it is not our duty at any time to leave any Church no matter how corrupt. This would lead us to act contrary to express injunctions of the Word of God already stated, and would involve an extreme that no one but a rank Papist would adopt. According to this argument, it was a mistake to have left the Church of Rome at the Reformation. It was also a mistake to have made a Disruption in 1843. Many who profess to be great admirers of that event use the example of Christ against the Disruption of 1893, forgetting that, according to their own argument, there should never have been any disruption. Some may argue, however, that Christ continued in the Jewish Church until He was cast out and put to death, and so that people should not leave corrupt Churches until physical force is employed against them. But this method of reasoning proceeds upon a misapprehension. It never requires physical force to put men out of an unsound Church when they are convinced that by remaining in it they should be unfaithful to Christ and His cause. The constraining power of conscience, and of the love of Christ is all that is necessary. The persons that require physical force to compel them to do their duty cannot claim much love to Christ. But it may be objected did not the martyrs suffer? Yes; but that took place after they renounced the authority of those who became their persecutors. As long as they acknowledged the sovereignty of Popes and prelates they were at peace, but no sooner did they take up a separate position than they were persecuted to the death. The argument employed from the example of Christ is a wholly fallacious one which will appear more clearly to be so in our further remarks.
The objection to separation based upon Christ’s example is founded upon a misapprehension of His relation to the Jewish Church, and of the time when the old dispensation terminated. The old dispensation did not terminate until the death of Christ. The temple with all its rites and ceremonies continued to be the divinely appointed centre of worship until the law of commandments contained in ordinances was done away with by the blood of Christ. It was when Christ offered the one sacrifice of Himself for the remission of sins, that the many sacrifices of bulls and of goats which could never take away sin, ceased for ever. It is manifest therefore that the Lord Jesus was under obligation to recognise the temple and all its services, no matter what was the personal character of the priests, until He offered Himself a sacrifice upon the cross. He was “made under the law to redeem them that were under the law.” He was made under the ceremonial as well as the moral law. He was circumcised after His birth, and Joseph and Mary offered a sacrifice for Him, according to the law of Moses. He commanded the lepers after their cleansing to show themselves to the priests and offer a sacrifice according to the law of Moses. He proved all through His earthly life that He was made under the ceremonial law. It was, in fact, impossible that He should do anything else than acknowledge the Jewish Church and its institutions, however wicked many of its leading men may have been. It is evident, therefore, that His example in this respect is no copy to His people now. By His obedience to the ceremonial law they are freed from all ceremonial institutions. The privileges of the Church were then confined to one nation, and one locality, but now these privileges are extended in the Gospel to all nations under heaven. To apply Christ’s relation to the Jewish Church to the circumstances of believers in relation to Churches now is simply making null and void the whole work of redemption, and is bringing back believers to the bondage from which they were redeemed. Under the Christian dispensation, wherever the whole counsel of God, as it is in Christ Jesus, is held in faithfulness and purity there is the Church of Christ. But if bodies which profess the faith of the Gospel depart from that faith, we are at perfect liberty to separate from them. Yea, it is our duty to do so that we may maintain the truth. Not that people under this dispensation should separate from Churches lightly and without sufficient cause. There is such a thing as the sin of schism, and men are likely to fall into it as well as into other sins. But the body from which we, as a Church, were compelled to separate departed so grievously from the faith that we wonder any person who has the least respect for the Word of God can remain in it.
Another objection has been drawn from the messages which were given to the angels of the seven Churches in Asia, recorded in the third chapter of Revelation. It is affirmed that nothing is said in these messages about separations or disruptions. To this we answer, first, that these messages were sent to those which the Holy Ghost denominates Churches, and which bore the marks of the true Church of Christ, notwithstanding some declensions. All religious bodies are not real Churches of Christ, and therefore all have not a real title to be considered on the same platform with the seven Churches in Asia. Again, we find that these Churches are not charged with renouncing fundamental doctrines of the faith. The Church of Ephesus is commended for patience and labour, but exhorted to greater love and zeal. The Church in Smyrna is commended without rebuke. The Church in Pergamos is also spoken highly of. “Thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith.” “But I have a few things against thee,” no doubt grievous things, but yet things of which they may now repent at the Lord’s command. The Church in Thyatira is also addressed, “I have a few things against thee.” The Church in Sardis is reproofed for its deadness. The Church in Philadelphia is commended. The Church in Laodicea is rebuked for its lukewarmness and self-righteousness. Now, whatever declensions had befallen these Churches none of them had fallen so low as some so-called Churches in our day, which give liberty to their members to believe views that undermine the very foundations of the faith, and of which, as public bodies, it is impossible to give any condemnation whatsoever. The Churches in Asia were chiefly chargeable with lack of love, zeal, and spiritual life, not so much with unsound doctrine. There is some hope of Churches, however dead, that adhere to the Word of God in its purity, because the Holy Spirit who works by and with the Word may bless it to their quickening and revival. But these bodies which have treated the Word of God as a common thing have thrown away the seed of life and are in danger of perishing for ever. We think that no argument against separation from unsound Churches can be based upon the messages to the seven Churches in Asia.
In concluding this article, we feel constrained to refer to the fact that the representative courts of our own Church are charged at present in a certain quarter, with departing from our principles. We would desire to assure our readers that the charge is wholly groundless, and that there is not a principle in our constitution but we, as a Church, hold as firmly and consistently as ever.