Part 23

The relation a thing believed sustains to the believer, is the main cause of its effect upon him. Robert Owen, who professed to have read, and traveled forty years, without being able to find any evidence of the truth of christianity, has lately become a believer in Spiritualism. How is it, that he is so slow to believe in one case, but so ready to believe in the other? The reason is to be found in the relation these two things to be believed, sustain to him. The belief in modern Spiritualism involves nothing, requires nothing and promises nothing. It is merely a speculative subject, for vain and idle curiosity; placing no man under any new obligations who believes it. It is a very suitable thing to catch a man of a perverted mind and heart; one who has rejected Jesus; resisted the testimonies of the Holy Spirit, and despised the Bible during an earthly pilgrimage of many years, which God has mercifully and graciously granted him. But the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God—that he is divine—that he is alive and lives forever and ever, is a fact sustaining a different relation to time. It is not a speculative fact for idle curiosity; not a mere theme for empty, cold and unfeeling hearts; for idle, confused and wandering brains; but a fact, intimately connected with all mankind; a fact, in which the destinies of all men are involved; one, too, bearing upon the lives and conduct of all men. Here is the reason that many are so slow to believe this, the greatest and most important of all the facts presented for the belief of mankind: it _requires a holy life_. A strange feature truly is it, in men, that they should prefer to believe that which requires nothing, proposes nothing and promises nothing, to that requiring the purest life, most exalted character, and ennobled feelings, promising the approbation of the Almighty now, and eternal joy in the world to come!

What reason can any man give for such opposition? No man believes that the Lord Jesus Christ ever made any human being worse. No man sincerely believes that the Bible makes any person worse; or that the Christian religion does any harm to any one of our sinful race. No human being solemnly believes that any harm could result from the universal prevalence of pure christianity, as set forth upon the pages of the New Testament, throughout the world. All men, upon cool and deliberate reflection, must be satisfied, that if all the peoples, nations, tribes and tongues of the earth, were fully under the power and influence of the Bible, mankind would be infinitely blessed by it. Not a sceptic in the world can give a reason for his opposition to the Lord Jesus and the Bible. O, that men knew Jesus! O, that they possessed his spirit and temper! O, that they would love him and be blessed by him!

CHURCH MEMBERSHIP.

The act of uniting with a church is not with the idea of being _changed_ or _made better_, in ourselves, but to be placed in the right relation. The man who is a christian ought to be united with other christians in a congregation where he can worship according to the Scriptures. It is one thing to become a christian, and another thing to find and unite with a congregation of christians where the ordinances are kept and the authority of Christ is maintained.

It is one thing to become a member of the body of Christ, or, which is the same, enter into the kingdom of God, and another thing for a person to unite with a local congregation. The Ethiopian officer became a christian, or entered into the kingdom of God, or the body of Christ, in obeying the gospel; but this did not make him a member of any particular local congregation, where he would meet with other christians and worship. This required an additional step. By faith, repentance and baptism he entered into Christ, or in the body of Christ, or became a christian. But if he has thus come into the general body, or thus become a christian, and then united with the Baptist church, or any other church, where he can not worship according to the Scriptures; where they do not commemorate the sufferings and death of Jesus regularly on the first day of the week, as the first christians did; where they have an unauthorized name, a human creed and other things contrary to Scripture; he has a right, and more, he ought to seek a gospel church where he can worship according to Scripture.

BELIEVERS ONLY TO BE BAPTIZED.

Baptism, the initiatory rite, or the act of entering the church, is a command. All commands must be preceded by faith. The divine authority, requiring baptism, must be recognized, before the command can be obeyed; and the divine authority can only be recognized by faith. How, then, can a command be obeyed by one without faith, without a consciousness of divine authority, or even the knowledge that the command exists? Such a practice subverts the command of God in every case where it obtains, and if it should become universal, would set aside and annihilate all obedience to the command to be baptized. In every case, where an infant is baptized, and prevailed upon, in after life, to be content with its baptism and infant membership, one person is effectually prevailed upon never to obey the command to be baptized, and never, personally, to bow to the authority of Jesus in voluntarily entering into covenant with him. The person is deceived, and made to think, when come to the years of accountability, that two things have been done that never have been done, viz: 1. That the command to be baptized has been obeyed. 2. That the requirement to enter into the church has been complied with. Neither the one nor the other has been complied with at all.

THE KNOWLEDGE NECESSARY BEFORE BAPTISM.

Some person,—name not known—writing from Ripley, Ohio, inquires whether persons baptized when very young, under excitement, having but little understanding of the import of baptism; and, after coming to mature years, become dissatisfied and desire to be baptized over again, should he then be baptized again? This question is entirely outside of the New Testament, and purely a question of opinion. Among the many thousands baptized by the apostles, there were many, evidently, who had but an imperfect understanding of the whole matter, not only of very young persons, but many very illiterate persons. Yet there is no account of any, on coming to a fuller understanding, who desired to be baptized in the name of the Lord. It matters not how little understanding persons have, if they believe in the Lord, repent of their sins, confess and obey the Savior. Nor is the circumstance that a person afterward understands the matter more fully, a reason why such an one should be baptized again; but simply an evidence of a proper growth in knowledge. There has been much said about the measure of understanding that must be had before baptism, that would cut off one half of the apostolic converts. Conversion is simply _turning to God_, and there are but few who aim not to do this.

PAUL AND JAMES, ON JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

The difficulty in this case is not to be solved in dreams about _different kinds of faith_. Writers may speculate upon different kinds of faith till doomsday, and neither extricate themselves from the difficulty, nor their readers. James and Paul were speaking of precisely the same kind of faith; but Paul’s “deeds of the law” are not the same as James’ “works;” or no man can avoid a contradiction. Paul and James are both speaking of the faith that justifies man, but neither of them are speaking of faith _alone_. Paul and James were speaking of the faith of Christ, by which the heart is purified, “without the deeds of the law” of Moses, and both would have agreed any time, that by the deeds of the law of Moses, no man could be justified in the sight of God. But the deeds of the law of Moses and the deeds of the gospel—the “good works which God has ordained that we should walk in them”—as mentioned by Paul—Eph. ii. 10—and the works of James, are not the same by any means. Paul was arguing against opposing Jews, who contended that men could be justified by the works or deeds of the law of Moses, and maintained in opposition to them, that, by the deeds of their law, no man could be justified in the sight of God; but man is now; justified by the faith of Christ, that works by love and purifies the heart—through the deeds of the gospel—the good works of the gospel—not the deeds of law, but the works of faith, like the works of Abraham, of which James speaks.

Neither Paul nor James believed that justification was by faith alone. Neither of them believed, or taught, that justification was by the deeds of the law of Moses. Neither of them believed that a man could be justified by faith, without the works of the gospel. Justification is by faith, not in the law of Moses, but in Christ; not alone, but, as Paul has it, in the “good works (of the gospel) which God hath ordained that we should walk in them;” or, as James has it, in the case of Abraham, his faith, wrought with his works, and through the divine appointment of both his faith and his works, the Lord justifies those who come to him. It is neither faith nor works, either of law or gospel, that justifies the sinner. It is God that justifies; but he only justifies those who come in a proper spirit, to his appointments.

CONTROVERSY.

Let no man infer from this, however, that we favor, or in any way encourage, a _love for controversy_. This is another thing entirely. By no means do we love controversy. It is deplored always, or at least the occasion of it. But shall a man, because he deplores controversy—because he is sorry to come in collision with men—because he knows unpleasantness will arise, and the smooth surface will be ruffled, evade the issues between light and darkness—between christianity and everything else? We did not make these issues and are not responsible for them. They exist whether we say anything about them or not, or whether we see them at all. The simple question is, whether we will stand by christianity and maintain it—whether we will face the issue, in a kind, a manly and noble manner, or shrink, depart from it and allow it to be crushed down. Our motto is, _Meet the issue fairly and squarely, in every instance of opposition to the gospel, in that way that shall prove most effectual_. Let there be no evasion, but stand firm and present an unbroken front.

CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE SPIRIT.[A]

Many brethren are inquiring of us about the Spirit, “correct views of the Spirit,” and of “the influence of the Spirit,” and insisting that we should respond to some things that are published, etc.; but, for the present, to all this we must simply say, that the Lord knows our hearts. He knows who have the Spirit, who are led by the Spirit, walk in the Spirit, mind the things of the Spirit and endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. He knows them who are his, who love him and keep his commandments. Blessed be his name; he is able to keep them from falling, make all grace abound to them and preserve them to his heavenly appearing and kingdom. With them, his great work is a reality, a real work, the greatest and best of all the works in which human beings have ever engaged; and they believe he is with them, will be with them while they shall struggle for his cause in this world, and will be with them in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to the gospel. In him they have put their everlasting trust;to him they have committed their cause, and to him they look for their final reward. They fear not what man can do to them, nor what he can say of them, but they fear him who is able to save and able to destroy, who is able to kill and able to make alive. We have nothing at stake only the cause of truth, of righteousness and humanity. We have no theory of our own to maintain, no philosophy to defend, nor pride of opinion to guard, but are willing to learn of the most humble disciple in the whole kingdom of God. If any brother really has more of the spirit of the Lord than we have, we envy him not because _he has more than we_, but we are only sorry that _we have less than he_.

* * * * *

By the way, as we now appear agreed that the Spirit of God should be actually received and enjoyed by the saints, whether that agreement be enforced by the terms of Scripture merely, or from the heart, God knows. There remains but a single point of importance in our mind. That is not, and has not been, whether the Spirit of God is actually received and enjoyed by the children of God; but whether any _teachings_ are communicated to man, or revelations made, either before or after conversion, to saint or sinner, except _through the senses_. Are not the revelations of God inscribed upon the sacred pages of the Bible, the only teachings from heaven, for both the church and the world, and are not these imparted to man through the senses? We do not believe that there are any revelations from God, or teachings, binding upon man, for saint or sinner, only those in the Bible, and these are imparted to man through the senses. If this is sensuous philosophy, then we are in for it.

[A] A discussion of the subject of Spiritual Influence was carried on among the Disciples during the Decade, beginning in the year 1856. Benjamin Franklin’s position, and indeed the gist of the controversy, is presented in the opening and closing paragraphs of an editorial in the _A. C. Review_.

SECTARIANISM.

Much as has been said upon the evils of sectarianism, within the last forty or fifty years, it is still true, that no one has given the subject too high a coloring. Its evils are equal to the most brilliant description we have had. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive how any one could speak, in too strong terms, of this one evil; yet, the sin of partyism, like many other sins of these times, is so fashionable and popular, that it is scarcely seen to be a sin at all. It is true, all seem to look upon it as a sin, for a man to create partyism and strife in the party to which he belongs, or any other party. But, to keep up the parties now in existence, and defend the peculiarities upon which they are predicated, and from which they receive their very existence, is considered _serving God_. Now, if it can be considered service to the Lord, to build up and keep up that old mother and mistress of all heresy, the Roman Catholic Church, then, why was not the very mystery of iniquity, already working in John’s day, doing service to God, in originating that grand establishment of sin and iniquity? Surely, it is giving as much glory to God to set on foot a great or a small religious scheme, as to keep it in motion after it is once started.

If it is doing the will of God to build up and sustain the Episcopalian Church now; surely, he was doing the will of God who originated it. This, no one will doubt. The same is true of the Lutheran, the Presbyterian, the Methodist Episcopal and all the indescribable parties which have descended from them. If it is service to the Lord now, to build them up, it was equally as great service to him to originate them. It is a fact, too, that all these parties honor their originators as the greatest and best men the world has had.

Now, how much should the opinions of these parties be considered worth? or, how much are the most earnest and solemn decisions they ever made, to be regarded? They would consider us highly uncharitable, if we did not regard these decisions as most solemnly true. Well, if the Roman Catholic Church ever made an earnest, an authoritative decision, in the world, it was when she declared Martin Luther a heretic. And what man, since his day, has broken off from an old party and established a new one, without most earnestly and solemnly being declared a heretic? No such man can be mentioned. The old party always decides that a new one, that breaks off from it, is a heresy. In this way, all the parties now in existence, have been decided _heresies_, and the leaders in them _heretics_. Yet, these _heresies_, as they have styled them, headed by those who have been decided _heretics_, have grown up, and are now called “_evangelical churches_.” How is all this? If the Lord never authorized them to be started, did he authorize their perpetuation? And if he did authorize them to be started, were not the old parties awfully wicked in condemning them, when they were doing the will of the Lord?

It, then, presents a fearful picture—turn the matter which way you may. If the parties, passing sentences, were wicked, and opposing the will of God, then are almost all wicked and sinful—for all the older and more popular, have passed such sentences. But if those upon whom sentence has been passed, are sinful, and under condemnation, then there are but few good, for such sentences have been passed upon nearly all. Such is the dilemma, in which partyism has involved the religious world.

If ever the adversary of man discovered an effectual stratagem, by means of which to defeat all piety, and do execution in opposing the faith of God’s elect, it was when he succeeded in sowing the seeds of dissension in the church of God. Our Lord’s words show that he had this before his mind, when he uttered the solemn prayer, John xvii. 20; “I pray not for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word; that they may all be one, as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that _the world may believe that thou hast sent me_.” Here it is clearly implied, that if those who believe, through the word, were _one_, the tendency would be to induce the world to believe. Nor is this any more clearly implied than the opposite, viz: that the lack of union among believers, leads to unbelief. How vain and imaginative the thought, that the existing parties of our times, will ever be instrumental in the hand of God, in converting the world, when the structure of their own organization, in itself, has a continual tendency to infidelity. Are we told that such is an ungenerous charge? Well, who can avoid it? The language of the Lord, just quoted, clearly implies that the faith of the world depends on the unity of believers; and we all admit, that the world cannot be converted without faith, for “without faith it is impossible to please God; for they that would come to him must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them who diligently seek him.” The matter is too clear to be misunderstood. The Lord saw that the world would not believe, till his people were _one_; hence, he prayed that they might be one, _that the world might believe_.

Need we pray for the conversion of the world? need we send missionaries to convince the pagan nations? need we print and circulate bibles? need we build churches, and preach with the zeal of apostles, in all the length and breadth of the land? I say, need we do all this, thinking to convert the world, while we maintain our own unhallowed divisions among believers? And, if we do, what evidence have we that the object we have in view will ever be attained? Not the least in the world; for so long as the Lord prays that we may _be one_—that the _world may believe_—we need not expect the world to believe, while we are _not one_.

It is true, we may convince, convert and save some, under the most disadvantageous circumstances; but what is this, compared with the _world believing_ or being converted? It is only a drop to the ocean. Why not, then, come back to this great obstacle, and remove it, that the conquests of righteousness and grace may extend over the earth?

It is confessed by all, in our time, that the Lord’s people are a spiritual people, and if any have not the Spirit of Christ, they are none of his. All are aware, too, that carnality is the opposite of spirituality. What, then, is an evidence of carnality? I. Cor. iii. 3, Paul asserts: “For ye are carnal.” What reason does he give for this assertion? “For,” says he, “whereas there is among you _envying_, and _strife_, and _divisions_; are ye not _carnal_, and walk as men?” He here alludes to their divisions, as an evidence of their carnality, or want of spirituality. But he argues the case further, as follows: “For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?” He here continues the charge, that their following different leaders is an evidence of their carnality. It should be kept in mind, too, that the divisions among the Corinthians were of the mildest form. If they could not be justified by the apostle, none since his time could be, for none less offensive have ever existed. If the Corinthian church, then, deserved the charge of carnality, as they certainly did, how will the parties of our times escape the same charge?

Now, let reason ask—let righteousness ask—let every thing great and good ask: Can the believers now on earth, sincerely, devoutly and fervently, pray and labor for the conversion of the world, to the Lord Jesus, in this state of carnality? It is alleged that _carnality_, or the absence of the Spirit of God in the hearts of believers, is not the cause of division? Then who are they that _separate themselves_? Let the Scripture answer: “These be they who separate themselves, _sensual, having not the Spirit_.” There is no higher nor surer evidence of sensuality, carnality, and the absence of the Spirit of the Lord, than division among the professed followers of Christ.

While this evil exists among the believers, can we pray in faith for the conversion of the world? Can carnal professors, in the absence of the Spirit of the Lord, without a sufficiency of the love of Christ, to fellowship but a small portion of those for whom Christ died, and who profess to love and serve him, hope that God will make them instrumental in converting the world? No, we need not flatter ourselves with the fond conceit, that anything like general saving influence will ever be felt by the world, until those for whom Jesus prayed are _one_. The meek and lowly Spirit of the Lord is displaced by the proud and fierce spirit of the partisan. The lovely and inviting character of the first church has disappeared and in its stead we have the inducements of gorgeous worldly and fleshly establishments. In the place of even being truly turned from sin to righteousness—from the power of Satan to God—we have conversions that merely consist in opposing all creeds and parties but the one into which the converts happen to fall, while they frequently love the Lord no better than before their conversion. In the place of that universal philanthropy exhibited by our Lord’s death, for the whole world, such converts are merely filled with party bigotry, which _dislikes_—yes, even _hates_—every body not of the “same faith and order.” Under the influence of such religion, people live near each other, see each other every day—yet associate not, nor allow their children to associate, nor even worship the Lord their God in the same house. And why this careful separation? They differ in faith! What difference? Well, they cannot tell exactly, but the learned _doctor_ who sermonizes for them, knows the difference. Go to him, and he will explain it to you. This is no extreme case. Nine-tenths of the members of churches cannot tell the difference between their own church and another. Yet, it is so great, that they cannot fellowship the other.

DANCING IS A HEALTHFUL EXERCISE.