Where Is the Blame? by E. F. Cottrell

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 22, 1872

Where Is the Blame?

By E. F. Cottrell

The union of all Christians would be a good thing, or Jesus would not have prayed that they all might be one, even as he and the Father are one—a perfect oneness—nor would an apostle have taught that there should be no divisions among them, but that they should be “perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”

If the union of all Christians would be a good thing, their division, as at the present day, is a bad thing. Hence there is a fault somewhere. Where does the blame rest?

It is natural for sinful man to excuse himself, and shift his blame upon another. This is exemplified in the first excuse for sin that was ever made. “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” The blame is shifted to the woman, and, through her, to God who gave her. So professed Christians seem disposed to lay the blame of their sinful divisions to the Bible and its Author. They are coming to the deliberate conclusion that it is impossible for men to understand what is required of them in the law of God and the gospel of Christ. If this is so, the blame, of course, is with the Bible. The revelation must certainly be defective.

Still there is a grand movement in progress for the union of all evangelical denominations. Not such a union as the Bible requires—a perfect union in heart and voice, so that there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all,” &c.—but a union founded upon the assumption that such a union is impossible, because that men cannot understand the requirements of God alike. Consequently, it is proposed for each to hold and practice whatever of truth and whatever of error there may be in his creed, calling their differences non-essential, and unite together as they are; thus virtually saying that there is no standard of faith and practice, and that truth and error are, for aught they know, equally good.

But the proposal for such a union, though it may be thought to be very charitable toward men, I must regard as a proposed conspiracy against the word of God. If the Bible is not a perfect rule of faith and practice, what is the use of it? When a union is effected by a conglomeration of discordant creeds, ignoring their differences, no standard of appeal is left. A plea of difference of understanding will shield from any censure. At present, this is supposed to be a good excuse. This broad charity, falsely so called, opens the gate to the largest liberty. Bible charity rejoiceth not in iniquity, but in the truth; but this ignores the difference, and rejoiceth in both alike.

But what is the object of the proposed alliance? Some may favor it from the best of motives only. But what will be the result? We fearlessly challenge it as a conspiracy against divine revelation, the truth of God. The union of two that had formerly been at enmity between themselves resulted in the crucifixion of Christ; and it is evident that the present proposed union will result in the crucifixion of the truth, and the persecution of those who still adhere to the Bible and keep its commandments. By the time this union is consummated, the true and loyal people of God will have been separated out from this Babel of confusion, and their adherence to the truth, and non-conformity to the prevailing idea of Christian union, will mark them as the objects upon which to try the gentle suasion of civil law, which will then be at their control.

The Christian churches are now composed of the good and the bad, of true believers, loyal in heart to the King of kings, and base hypocrites, having the form and not the power of godliness. These will be separated, according to the word of the Lord. The message of Rev. 9-12 will call out the true. Only think of what will ensue, when a sham union, independent of the word of the Lord, shall be effected with all these numerous and powerful bodies, with all of the salt of the earth separated, and the Spirit of God consequently totally withdrawn!

Human nature, unrestrained by the Spirit of God, is the same base thing it ever has been since Cain slew his brother, because his own works were evil and his brother’s righteous; notwithstanding all the enlightenment and refinement of which we boast in these days. And it is worthy of special consideration that, while there is such a tendency to union upon the broad foundation of a charity and liberality toward each other that ignores and virtually sets aside the word of God, making its institutions and ordinances non-essential, because unintelligible and necessarily misunderstood—there is simultaneously a reaching out after civil power to enforce the observance of a religious institution which is not so much as mentioned in the Scriptures—the observance of the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath—concerning which, Neander, an eminent church historian, says, “It was always only a human ordinance,” and for which all but the most ignorant know that there is no command in the word of God. They might truly denominate this a non-essential; for where no law is, there is no transgression. But in regarding in some way this day most are agreed. And it is truly remarkable, that while they hold such lax views concerning those institutions which are subjects of revelation, they should feel the necessity of a more stringent enforcement of human tradition.

We have the charity to believe that not one in a thousand of those who feel favorable to these two movements, namely, an alliance of sects without respect to Bible truth, and the seeking of civil enactments to sustain human tradition, have the least idea of the sure result, should they succeed. But let them succeed, and the result we have intimated is inevitable. Plausible as this must be to men of reason, especially those acquainted with the history of the past, yet it may seem only imaginary, and therefore incredible. But we find this view of things supported by revelation; so that there is not only reason to fear such a result, but we may confidently expect it. For proof of this, the reader is referred to Rev. 13:11-18, a descriptive prophecy that can apply to no other power than the United States. This word of prophecy will not fail of its fulfillment.

Brethren, in view of these things, what shall we do? To those who say, “A confederacy,” shall we respond, “Amen; a confederacy”? Isa. 8:12. Shall we not rather “Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself;” stand up, in word and deed, for the “commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” (Rev. 14:12); and refuse assent to an alliance which sets aside the word of God, compromises its truths, and virtually lays the blame of men’s divisions and heresies, which originate in, and are perpetuated by, the carnal mind, upon the Author of revelation? 1 Cor. 3:3, 4; Rom. 8:7. To stand firm and unwavering upon the word of the Lord will be extremely unpopular. Those who do this will be esteemed narrow-minded, bigoted, and exclusive. But this position will be safe. God will vindicate his word, and teach all men that they cannot traduce it with impunity. The strongest confederation of men cannot nullify that word, and make the blame of their disobedience adhere to its Author.

But, my brethren, nothing short of an entire consecration to God, a supreme love of his holy law in our hearts, will prepare us to stand in the time that is before us. Are we ready?

E. F. Cottrell.