Page:Southern Presbyterian Journal, Volume 13.djvu/902



When the Confession speaks of the catholic church, it does not mean the Roman church. In fact, the Roman church is not catholic. Catholic means universal and "the catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof . . ." The word church itself (ecclesia) is derived from the verb to call or to call out. The catholic church then is the aggregate of all whom God has called out or predestinated to eternal life.

The invisible church, or more accurately a part of it, becomes the visible church as those who confess Christ, together with their children, are organized into congregations. In the last article it was maintained that civil government ought not to coerce Baptist congregations to renounce their independence. Definition of Baptist belief and practice by civil magistrates is to be deplored and opposed. At the same time we believe that the New Testament (e.g. Acts 15) prescribes an ecclesiastical organization wider than the local congregation. Therefore we are Presbyterians. But the Baptists, we gladly admit, are more nearly right than some ultra devout persons who think there should be no ecclesiastical organization whatever. One's blind spot must be of unusual size to miss all the various organizational, disciplinary, judicial, and administrative prescriptions of the Bible.

Although as Presbyterians we believe that there should be an ecclesiastical organization wider than the local congregation, it does not follow that the visible church ought to be formed into a single organization. Every attempt by the proponents of ecumenical union to support their views by exegesis has been a notable failure. And a study of history shows clearly that the scandal of Christendom is not the multiplicity of small denominations, but the corruption of one big denomination. Those persons who value organizational union over doctrinal and moral purity can readily achieve satisfaction. Let them repent of the schism of Luther and Calvin, and return to Rome.

But all who believe that Luther and Calvin effected not a schism but a reformation place a greater stress on doctrinal purity than on organization—even good organization, not to speak of bureaucratic centralization. And in addition we are far from admitting that all organizations which call themselves Christian, are necessarily Christian. "The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan."

One difference, no doubt the chief difference, between a church of Christ and a synagogue of Satan is that the former has no other head but the Lord Jesus Christ. Whether or not a given organization has Christ as head is not to be decided merely by a formal claim. "Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven." It is possible for a group to have a fine doctrinal statement and pay no attention to it. When the ministers of a denomination repeatedly deny essential elements of the gospel, attack the Virgin Birth and the substitutionary atonement, when they are more interested in admitting Red China to the United Nations than in the physical return of Christ to earth, and when over a period of years the denomination makes no effort to remove such men from its rolls, then, despite any historic profession, it is naive to believe that Christ is acknowledged as head. The test is obedience to Christ's commands, not empty ordination vows.

"There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be the head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God" (sec. vi).

Would that Luther and Calvin, who defied the Councils of their day, were alive now to defy the Councils of our day.

A new type of educational literature is clamoring for public recognition these days. It is freely offered by educationists posing as authorities. And public officials—yielding to the pressure of lobbyists—are allowing their good names to be used in its distribution. This educational literature that is being foisted upon an unsuspecting public goes by the name of "new education." It is not new in study content. It is new in that it minimizes school content and tends to identify education with methodology. It is not what one learns but how one learns that counts. This new education is characterized by an utter lack of moral discipline and by an absence of intellectual content. This implies that modern education is in process of losing itself. For what have we left if education is robbed of moral discipline and intellectual content?

In age-honored, time-tested education, pupils were told what they should do and what they PAGE 4