Birth of a Reformation; Or, The Life and Labors of Daniel S. Warner

by A. L. Byers

From what we learn of Brother Warner's earlier views and attitude, he never had a party spirit; he never was a sectarian. Even from his early ministry the love and fellowship that exists among the people of God he recognized as the paramount bond of Christian union. After his conversion, when dealing with the question of what church he should join, he is found casting about to determine which one represented the real church of God. As the followers of Winebrenner had the right name, and seemed to him to be correct in doctrine, he was led into that denomination. With the insufficient light he then possessed he probably failed to see the man rule that prevailed, instead of the Holy Spirit rule that characterizes the divine, theocratic government in the true church of God. He discovered, of course, the clash of this man rule with the free, independent inclination of the Holy Spirit, by which he preferred to be led. But he bore with it patiently, believing that he was in the true church; and it took years to discover to him that the body to which he belonged was but a sect.

It was through the attainment of the Bible standard of holiness that he was gradually led into the truth respecting the church and sects. Early in 1878 he wrote: "The Lord showed me that holiness could never prosper upon sectarian soil encumbered by human creeds and party names, and he gave me a new commission to join holiness and all truth together and build up the apostolic church of the living God." He soon began to receive light on the Scriptures, which revealed to him that the church was to be restored to her primitive glory in the evening of the dispensation. The chapter on a Spiritual Shaking, taken from his book, clearly shows that when the chapter was written (1879) he understood that God was going to bring out a pure church. He published this in 1880, which became the date from which the present epoch of the church may be reckoned.

It should be remembered that during this time he was connected with the Northern Indiana Eldership; but as this was a body already separated from the old Eldership because of their purpose to keep on the Scriptural basis, he really believed that this body was the true church, for that was its claim. Thus he was really out of sectism in heart and was associated with a body claiming to be the church of God. During the last year (1880) of the Herald of Gospel Freedom, when it was fully under his editorial charge, its columns, while teaching holiness, breathed the principles of the one true church. One of its stated objects was "the union of all true believers in the Spirit of God and upon the inspired Word." Because of insufficient light on the governmental aspect of the true church, he was slow to discover that even the new Eldership was only a body ruled by men. As light came on the Holy Spirit government, he looked upon the man rule elements in the Eldership as inconsistencies that needed removal. It was human machinery that he thought needed to be dispensed with. We must concede, therefore, that in the meantime he was, to all intents and purposes, out of sects.

We speak of this period as the crisis because he took such a bold, uncompromising stand against sects and taught holiness and the principles of the church with such thoroughness that it seemed to awaken every satanic element that had been slumbering under the guise of false profession. People had either to accept the truth or go into darkness. To him it meant the break-up of old relations, the drawing of new lines of fellowship, exposure to persecution, and everything that might befall the career of a reformer. As the teaching of the resurrection and the repudiation of circumcision constituted the offence of the cross in Paul's day, so the preaching of the Bible standard of holiness and the renouncement of all sects became the offence of the cross at this time. We shall give several selections from the earlier issues of the Trumpet that are representative of its teaching. In the issue of Mar. 1, 1881, we have the following:

BRANCHES

Where in the Bible do we find the idea of sects being branches, as people talk about? "What branch of the church do you belong to?" is a common expression in these times of antiscriptural language and practise. Why do not people read their Bibles better and learn that every individual believer is a branch in Christ—John 15?

If a whole sect is a branch, then the individual must be a sub-branch; but this would make each one dependent upon the sect for his union with, and life from, Christ. This would be second-hand salvation. We should not like to risk the coupling—I prefer a direct union with Christ.

Taking Christ's parable of the Vine and Branches, there is but one way to represent branch sects; that is, imagine the branches adhering directly to the vine but pressed together and tightly bound into several bunches. Thus drawn together each bundle would have the appearance of a branch; but upon closer examination it would be found to consist of many branches each adhering to the vine, except a good many dead sticks, that had been killed by the unnatural confinement, and had rotted loose from the trunk.