Part 16

The Romish apostasy now has some forty _holy days_ in a year, and as many human laws about observing them, while those involved in it gormandize, drink, revel and gamble on the _Lord’s day_, and thus encroach upon the laws of a civilized and enlightened people. Protestants are patronizing them in this, and recognizing their _holy days_, and at the same time making nothing of celebrating the sufferings of our Lord, on the first day of every week, as all history assures us was the practice of the first church! Instead of recognizing the glorious resurrection of our Lord, in the assembling on the first day of the week, they talk of the _Sabbath_, and instead of “the communion of the blood and body of the Lord”—the commemoration of his great sufferings for us, they listen to a pitiful ditty called “a sermon,” and then put on long faces and keep Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, etc., not named in the law of God at all, but derived from paganism. If we had no other objection to sectarianism but this, we would stand clear. People who see nothing in “the first day of the week”—“the Lord’s day”—but _Sabbath_, or _rest_, and see not the importance of celebrating the Lord’s death, commemorating his sufferings, in obedience to some of his last instructions, such as the injunction, “Do this till I come”—“Do this in memory of me”—need to be enlightened before they can be regarded as worshipers in any true sense, under Christ. This is the very life, the heart, the soul, and if it be left out, all is a sham, an empty pretence—nothing. The question is not about Christmas, Good Friday, nor Easter, of Romish and pagan authority, but of “the Lord’s day,” and “the communion of the blood and body of the Lord,” having the supreme and absolute authority of the Great King.

PREACHERS BELONGING TO NO CHURCH.

We think it is quite proper for men who belong to no church to make it known, and then if people want to uphold such anarchy, disorderly men, as preachers of the gospel, they can do so with a clear understanding. If preachers can live out of any church and do the will of God, other people can do the same. This is not all nor the worst of it. These men claim not only that they can live out of any church and do the will of God, but they claim that they can do more good out of any church than in one. This only needs to be run out to its legitimate result to see the absurdity of it. Outside of _any church_ is not only outside of churches of human device, but outside of the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. The Lord has established one church, one body, one kingdom. He gave himself for that church. He built it on the rock. He sanctified and cleansed it with the washing of the water by the word. He made one new man, so making peace, or _one new church_. It is the Lord’s _one flock_ of which he is the one Shepherd; the temple of God, in which God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit dwell; the kingdom which we have received that _can not be moved_. Outside of _any church_ is outside of _this church_. Outside of this church is the world, and inside of it is the kingdom of God—all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.

A CHOIR.

We find some brethren call a few members of the church who sit together and lead the singing a choir. This is no choir in the popular sense, nor is it at all objectionable, specially if the singing is so conducted that the members generally sing. But this is not the meaning of choir. The choir in a church is composed of artistic performers, who _sing for the church_; sing difficult pieces that the masses can not sing, _for music_ and _musical display_, to attract, entertain and gratify the people—to charm them with _music_. These are _professional singers_, chosen without any regard to their piety, and frequently without any regard to their moral character. They sing to show how they can sing, amuse and entertain.

COURTESY IN FELLOWSHIP.

Any man who is a christian, or is in Christ, can be received into the fellowship of the church. If a man is not a christian, not in Christ, he can not, in any consistency, be received into the church or into the pulpit. We would not give much for any man’s principles, who can set them aside for a little act of _courtesy_, or a little pretence of _liberality_. It is nothing but a sham, an empty pretence and hypocrisy, to receive a man into the pulpit, and recognize him before the people, to whom you would not give the right hand of fellowship.

It is liberality to allow every man the same liberty you enjoy, but a sham, a pretence and hypocrisy to recognize him as a preacher of Jesus, when you do not believe he is in Christ, and would not give him the right hand of fellowship and take him into the church. Nor is it _courtesy_ to receive such a man into the stand as a preacher, but _hypocrisy_. A man who is in Christ is a brother, and, if a preacher of Christ, may be received as such, in good faith. Such an one has a right to all the privileges of the body of Christ, by virtue of being in it. But the man who ignores the law of the King, and recognizes persons who are not in Christ as brethren, christians and preachers, instead of displaying a broad liberality, an extended charity, shows that he has no settled principles—that he disregards principles and law.

Who ever thought a Mason or an Odd Fellow was discourteous for not recognizing a man as a Mason who did not belong to the order? Certainly no man of intelligence. They have their initiation, and without it you are not in the order, and they do not recognize you, charitably or uncharitably.

PRAISE GOD BY SINGING.

We never heard Dr. Knox announce a song to be sung in public, while we were with him in Prince Edward Island, when he did not say, distinctly and very audibly, “We will praise God by singing,” etc. This opens out with the right idea. How grand and sublime to _praise God_ in song! We ought to sing in worship, not for music, or even fine singing, but to _praise God_, to _worship_ the Lord our God as an act of _devotion_ to God. We ought not to enter into it with the heart set on _music_, either instrumental or any other sort, but on God and our gracious and merciful Lord Jesus the Christ. The words ought to be read frequently and a few words of comment on them, calling attention to the _sense_, the praises, thanksgiving and supplications. Then people who know not God will see, as many christians appear to fail to see, the propriety of the word in one of our hymns: “Let those refuse to sing who never knew our God.” It is a contradiction of all common sense of the very meaning of the worship in song, for those who never knew God, or who never even professed to be christians or tried to turn to God, to say nothing of vile characters, to attempt to enter in the worship in song.

We care not how well people sing if they praise God, give thanks and pour out their souls to him. Enter into the song with heart and soul, and sing out with full voices, enraptured with the _theme_ of the song, Him whose praises they sing, the salvation he graciously gives and the immortality he proposes to bestow. The theme of the song is the great matter. To sing with the spirit and the understanding is commanded, and to teach and admonish in singing is also commanded. The main body of the singing now done is not with the spirit nor the understanding, nor is anything _taught_ or any one _admonished_. This is _no worship_. Singing merely to make music is no more worship than performing on a piano or violin.

CHRIST WILL COME.

But that Christ will come—“that same Jesus”—as literally as he was seen go up into heaven from Mount Olivet, we entertain not one doubt. That the dead will be raised and pass the final judgment, after which the wicked will go away into everlasting punishment—into the fire of _gehena_, where the worm dies not and the fire is not quenched, at the same time that the righteous enter into life eternal—we entertain not one doubt. These are clear and awful matters of divine revelation, and the main matters to set forth and enforce on men, and not theories _about_ these great matters. Is it true that a man may “lose his own soul?” that a man may be “cast into hell?” that “both soul and body” may be “destroyed in hell?” that wicked men “shall go away into everlasting punishment?” that they may be “tormented day and night, forever and ever?” Is it true that God “has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he has ordained; of which he has given assurance to all men, in that he has raised him from the dead?” Beyond all question, it is true. In raising Jesus from the dead, God has given assurance to all men that he will judge the world in righteousness. The assurance that God will judge the world in righteousness is the reason for repentance. He commands all men, everywhere, to repent, because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness.

ONE RELIGION.

Is there one true and divine religion in the world? The answer of the people in this country generally is, that there is. Touching this answer we entertain not a doubt. There is in this world one religion from God, and of supreme and absolute authority. It covers the whole ground, and leaves not the least room for any other. All others are departures from it, corruptions of it, or amalgamations with something else. That one religion was given by Christ and his apostles. Christ is the Author of it. He is the Alpha and the Omega—the Beginning and the Ending. “All authority in heaven and on earth is given to him.” His religion, and no other, has the divine, the supreme, and the absolute authority in it. There is not one particle of divine authority in any other. All others are usurpations, existing in antagonism and rebellion, and will be overthrown.

The Papal religion is a compound, or an amalgamation of Judaism, Christianity and Paganism, the latter, by far, preponderating. Its great love for, and attachment to the Latin, is in deference to Paganism. While it contains some truth, and some parts of the religion of Christ, it can not be said, in truth, to be _that religion_. It is another, a departure, an apostasy; beyond recovery, and the divine command to the people of God involved in it, is to “Come out of her, that you be not partaker of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues.” Rev. xviii. 4. God says, “Her sins” (the sins of Mystery Babylon) “have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.” This iniquitous system, as a distinct religion, was not in the world for ages after the true religion was established. We need inform no one a little acquainted with the New Testament, that no such being as the Pope was in the church, nor in the world, in the time of the apostles; nor does he appear in the early history of the church at all. We might as well look into the Bible or early history for an account of Mohammed, or the Mormon prophet, as for the Pope. Neither the Pope nor Mohammed appear at all in history, for hundreds of years after the establishment of the only true religion. Nor was there a Cardinal or an Archbishop, during the same period. These dignitaries were not _developed_ till long after the founding of the New Institution. The entire priesthood of the Papacy, as now found, as also the Nuns and Sisters of Charity, are wanting in all the history, and, we may safely say, in everything written in the early centuries. There is not a trace of them in the Bible, except in prophecy, nor in any writing, for hundreds of years after the apostles. This any man knows who has read and reflected at all.

The idea of the Papacy existing, except in embryo, insidiously coming up, without a Pope, a Cardinal, an Arch-bishop, a Bishop, a Priest, a Nun, or Sister of Charity, for centuries after Christ, is one of the most preposterous things ever imposed on the credulity of mankind. Yet the very mention of these dignitaries is lacking in all the writings of several of the early centuries, either in the Bible or out of it. There is not a trace of them in any writing of the period of which we speak, Jewish, Christian, Infidel or Pagan. There is nothing clearer than that the Papal religion came up too late to have the least claim to be the true religion. The same is true of the Mohammedan religion. The true religion was in the world long centuries before Mohammedanism had an existence. It was born too late to be the true religion.

The true religion was born in Jerusalem. The Papacy was born in Rome. Rome has been its seat—its Eternal City. It did not begin in Jerusalem, but in Rome. Mohammedanism was not born in Jerusalem, but in Mecca. It did not originate with Jesus but with Mohammed. A religion not known till hundreds of years after Christ and his apostles, most unequivocally is not the true religion. We need not trouble the reader with the mention of any religion, born at a later date, in another place, or originating with another person. Such a religion certainly has no claim to be the true one. The true religion originated with Jesus, in Jerusalem, and in the time of Christ and the apostles. Any religion that did not originate with Jesus, in Jerusalem, and in the time of Christ and the apostles, and that does not appear in the accounts found on the pages of the New Testament, nor any writings of the first three centuries, is out of the question. If the very name of any religion, the person with whom it originated, and other important matters connected with it, are not found in the Bible, nor a trace of it in history for hundreds of years after Christ, it is out of the question.

Is there any way to determine what the true religion is? Is it anywhere distinctly set forth, revealed and embodied in writing, so that we can find it separate from everything else? It is distinctly set forth by Christ and his apostles, separate from everything else. They revealed it as complete religion in itself, containing all things necessary to life and godliness—the final the last will of God to man. It is the culmination, the embodiment and consummation of infinite wisdom and goodness in one religion, for all nations of men that dwell on all the face of the earth. Can we find it? Can we tell what it is? Can we practice and enjoy it? We claim that we can find it, practice it and enjoy it. Can we determine what it requires us to believe, what it requires us to do, and what it promises us? If we have to say no to all this, we are in a deplorable condition truly. But we claim that we can find the true religion, determine what it is, practice and enjoy it; that we can determine what it requires us to believe, what it requires us to do, and what it promises us. This being so, there is not an excuse for any man being irreligious, taking up with a wrong religion, thinking that something is the true religion that is not, believing something that it does not require, doing something it does not command, or hoping for something it does not promise.

There is one book in which the religion of Christ is set forth. That one book is the Bible. In that book the one religion, the only true religion, is set forth; set forth correctly by the unerring Spirit of all revelation and all divine wisdom. Not another religion is found in that book, now in force. No man goes to that book to find an account of the Pope, a Cardinal, or an Archbishop of the Papal type. No man of intelligence goes there to find an account of Mohammed, or the Koran. No man of intelligence goes to the Bible to find an account of the Church of England, its origin, rise, or any part of its history. No man goes to the Bible to find an account of Lutheranism, its origin, rise, or any part of its history. There never was a Lutheran before Martin Luther lived, in the sixteenth century. No man goes to the Bible to find an account of the origin of Presbyterianism. There never was a Presbyterian before John Calvin. No man goes to the Bible to find the origin, rise, or any part of the history of Methodism. There never was a Methodist before John Wesley. We do not go to the Bible to find an account of George Fox, Ann Lee, Joe Smith, etc.; nor of Quakerism, Shakerism, or Mormonism. These persons are not Bible characters, and these religions are not Bible religions. They came not into existence till long ages after the last words of the Bible were written. The true religion had been in the world ages before these were born. This ends all controversy about their claims to be the true religion. The true religion was a finality. In its closing words it forbids any addition.

There is not an item in any religion in the world that is right that did not come from the Bible. All parties admit that all that comes from the Bible is right, and all that does not come from the Bible is without authority. Their differences are about what is not in the Bible and not about what is in the Bible. They all believe the Bible, but they do not believe what each other have in their other books that is not in the Bible. It is not the Bible that makes the Baptists, for there is nothing in the Bible about the Baptists, and then the Episcopalians have the Bible and believe it as much as the Baptists do, and it does not make them Baptists. It is not the Bible that makes Episcopalians, for the Presbyterians have the Bible and believe it as much as the Episcopalians do, and it does not make them Episcopalians. It is not the Bible that makes Presbyterians, for there is nothing in the Bible about Presbyterians, and then the Methodists have the Bible and believe it as much as the Presbyterians do, and it does not make them Presbyterians.

The movement about the beginning of this century was not to establish a new church, or a new religion, but to return to the Lord, find the old religion and the old church; receive, believe and practice what the old religion, as set forth in Scripture, requires, and nothing else. No movement can go back of this, nor rise above it, if it does what it claims. What remains for us, is to stand to it, maintain it and carry it out practically and faithfully.

A. CAMPBELL’S SUCCESSORS AND CRITICS.

Some fifteen years ago a few of our more advanced men gradually commenced opening up to our benighted minds, the fact, that A. Campbell was not the great man we had thought he was; that he was not the scholar we had thought; that some of his chief ideas were erroneous, and that we should have much trouble in _undoing_ what he had _done wrong_. We were growing up many young men, and being illiterate and unlearned, we knew not but we had over estimated A. Campbell, and that some mighty men were rising among us, that would throw him in the shade. But we had one comfort all the time, and that was that we were not alone in the opinion that A. Campbell was a man of superior learning and parts. We noticed that he attracted the fire of the great guns of the infidels, the Universalists, the Roman Catholics, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and sectarians in general. He attracted the attention of the great men of Christendom, distinguished the hills of Bethany, and gave them a name that will extend down to the end of the ages. No man on this continent called forth anything like the same amount of attention he did, for the space of forty years. It was not a mere fortuity that gave him notoriety, but sound learning, correct and abundant information, persistent and determined work, with a fixed and settled purpose, to which he addressed the energies of his life. He was a mighty man in the highest sense, and to this the impression he made on the people of this great country, will testify till the Lord shall come.

We have been amused with two classes of men among us. Those of one class were adjusting themselves for the mantle of A. Campbell to fall on them when he would depart. Had that mantle fallen on one of them, he would have appeared like a boy with his father’s great coat on—it would have fit nowhere. The other class are finding his errors and going beyond him. But it is remarkable, that in almost every instance, these _advanced_ men prove to be wrong themselves. Instead of their discovering some _new truth_, they resurrect some _old error_. We do not think it is advancing very far ahead of A. Campbell to resuscitate the Romish and Restorationist idea of an obscure Scripture. We frequently think of the man’s invention, that claimed that he could grow sheep _without wool_—it is more curious than profitable.

It is not _inventive_ genius we need in the Church, nor _explorers_ to _invent_ something new, or to _make discoveries_; but we need humble and honest men, who know and love the truth, and will press it on the world. We know humble men, of but limited talent and information, who are building up churches, reforming men and women, and bringing them to God. We know also men of considerable learning and talent, who do not turn a bare dozen to the Lord in a year, and who build up no churches nor anything else, but who are starting subtleties, speculations and questions to no profit, but only tend to subvert the hearer. Why can men not be content with the plain truth, the precious truth that makes men wise to salvation, through faith in Christ? It is easily learned, easily preached and readily believed and obeyed to the salvation of the soul. It is for the people, the whole people, and adapted to them. The kind of greatness we need, is that which manifests itself in preaching great truth in plain and easy terms, and bringing it to the comprehension of the people. The command is, and will be till the Lord comes, “Preach the word.”

AUTHORITY OF A SINGLE CONGREGATION.

A single congregation of the Lord in any community can administer and execute the work of the Lord in all its parts. This is true of every congregation. When assembled it is a divinely-authorized body to act in the matters of the kingdom of God. There is no other divinely-authorized body on earth to act in the matters of the kingdom of God. This body is under the old commission from the Lord: “Observe all things whatever _I have commanded you_.”

CLASSIFICATION OF MISSIONARY MEN.

We have been trying to classify our missionary men, so that we can think of them with intelligence. We put them down as follows:

_First._ Men who go ahead and preach, and continue on preaching. These are missionary men in the true sense.

_Second._ Men that contribute liberally of their substance to support those who are devoted to preaching, and see that their money goes to the men that do the work. These are missionary men also in the true sense.

_Third._ Men who _devise plans_, inaugurate missions, and call on other people to give the money, stand ready where the money comes out, or at the missionary box, to catch it, and propose, when they get $10,000, to send _somebody to preach_! These may be great on _devising_, _planning_ and _inaugurating_; but we can not work ourself into the belief that they are _missionary men in the true sense_. We want to see some proposition for _them to go_; and we want to know that they are _going_. This hanging on to rich churches and fine salaries, and proposing to receive the _money of the people_, and send somebody to preach, is not “the Lord’s plan,” nor any other that will stand in the day of judgment.