p. 504 | The Church. No 17 by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Aug 20, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 32.

The Church. No 17.

By Editor

WE have said that our test of church fellowship is "the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Rev. 14:12. And it has been shown that we admit of no church membership without baptism. This is a gospel ordinance—a part of the faith of Jesus. And it has been shown, which indeed needs no proof, that there can be no right to church privileges without church membership. But this is only one side of our platform; but one part of our message. The commandments of God are primary; they are of paramount importance. And if we would not admit to our membership one who rejects an ordinance of the faith of Jesus, much less should we admit one who rejects the commandments of God, or any one of them.

We say the commandments of God are primary—are of paramount importance. But the tendency of the present time is to make them secondary; and even to make them of little or no importance at all. Many who profess to believe and to reverence the Scriptures, do not like to hear the preaching of the law. Even in those churches which were founded on opposition to the antinomian heresy, some ministers now reject the commandments of God. As an example, a Mr. Woodward of the M. E. Church in California, published a pamphlet in which he says explicitly that the ten commandments are not binding—that Christ abolished them. This work was indorsed by Dr. Stratton, president of the "University of the Pacific," and highly recommended by the Christian Advocate of San Francisco. And Dr. Stratton took pains to speak disparagingly, and even contemptuously, of those who advocate the observance of the ten commandments as Jehovah himself proclaimed them. But we are happy to say that the position taken by Mr. Woodward and his indorsers is not according to the Methodist faith as expressed by the standard authorities of that church. To show that we truly represent that church we give a few extracts. In a work on church doctrines we found the following words:—

"The Methodist Conference under Wesley in 1770, declared that the universal immorality then prevailing was because of the widespread opinion that Christ had annulled the moral law, and that evangelical freedom dispensed with the ten commandments."

"Wesley's Notes" on this conference drew forth upon him, and upon the work of the Methodists, severe criticisms from certain dignitaries of the established church. And these in turn brought out "Fletcher's Checks to Antinomianism," a work worthy of the careful reading of every searcher for Bible truth. And Dr. Clarke and all eminent Methodists have spoken decidedly on the subject, in perfect harmony with the position taken by Wesley and Fletcher. Bishop E. O. Haven wrote an excellent work on the ten commandments, entitled "The Pillars of Truth." Bishop Simpson delivered the best series of lectures that has ever been given in the "Yale Lecture Course on Preaching," in which he spoke as follows:—

"The law of God, in its great and solemn injunctions, should be distinctly set forth. Our congregations should be gathered as around the base of Mount Sinai, while from its summit is heard the voice of God in those commandments which are unalterable and eternal in their character. The effect of those utterances will be, that consciences will be awakened and hearts will tremble. Some will say, with Moses, 'I do exceedingly fear and quake,' when they behold the majesty of the law, the purity of God, and their own impurity. Others may be repelled, and will say, 'Let not God speak to us any more.' Some will object to the sternness of the law, and will say, 'Prophesy smooth things;' but still that law must be preached. It brings the sinner to a recognition of his sins in having transgressed God's holy law, and shows him the fearfulness of the doom which is impending over him. The law must be followed by the gospel; the awakened sinner must be pointed to the Saviour, that he may see and feel that, deep as are the stains of his transgressions, the blood of Christ can wash them all away. There are many preachers who love to dwell on the gospel alone. They talk sweetly and beautifully of the fatherhood of God. This is well. It is more than well, it is essential. But sometimes they go beyond this, and declaim against the preaching of the law—intimate that it belongs to a past age, a less civilized society; that men can best be moved by love alone, and they rely wholly on its attractive power. Such a gospel may rear a beautiful structure; but its foundation is on the sand. No true edifice can be raised without its foundations being dug deep by repentance toward God, and then shall the rock be reached, and the building shall be through faith in Jesus Christ. The law without gospel is dark and hopeless; the gospel without law is inefficient and powerless. The one leads to servitude, the other to antinomianism. The two combined produce 'charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.'"

Thus, according to Bishop Simpson, the work of Mr. Woodward, is built on the sand, though it is recommended by a D. D. and a Christian Advocate. According to the constitution of the M. E. Church, Mr. Woodward is not orthodox. But the fact that he has written in direct denial of the standards of the Methodist Church, and that he is indorsed by prominent men, and that his work is favorably received by so many, in his denomination, proves our assertion that even in those churches which stand in outspoken opposition to antinomianism, the tendency is toward a denial and rejection of the law. The more Mr. Woodward's work is indorsed, the stronger is the proof that the Methodist Church is drifting away from the basis on which it was founded, and from the landmarks by which it has constantly been guided until recently.

And what is true of this church in California, is true of it in other parts of the country. And it is true also of other denominations, as we could easily show.

We will now illustrate the relative position and importance of the commandments and the faith—the law and the gospel—by the following occurrence:—

Several years since, a minister of an antinomian denomination (the Disciple) declared in a sermon that, even if the ten commandments were binding, we find duties and institutions of the gospel of much greater importance. Soon after he made this statement, one of his own members, whom he himself had baptized, committed murder, thus breaking one of the ten commandments. We had the privilege of asking him this question before a congregation: "Here is a man who has been baptized, who has embraced the gospel as you teach it, and now has broken one of the ten commandments. Is he therefore a better man than he would be if he had kept the commandment, and never been baptized?" He had to confess before the people that he was not better, but would have been a better man if he had kept the commandment and never been baptized. And why was this so? It was because violation of one of the ten commandments neutralized his baptism. The gospel is necessary because the law has been transgressed; but the gospel is of no effect to him who persists in disobeying the law.

This is truth, beyond dispute. And it follows, as we have asserted, that the law is paramount. And, therefore, if it is right to reject from our fellowship him who rejects the ordinances of the gospel, much more is it right to reject him who rejects the commandments of God, or any one of them.

The conclusion is easily reached, and it is unavoidable. We cannot admit to church membership any one who is a rejector of the law of God, and if not to church membership, then not to church privileges. If it would be inconsistent to admit to our communion, or to go to the communion of, those who are not baptized, it is most assuredly inconsistent to partake of the communion with those who do not keep the commandments of God.

Some persons (mistaken ones, we think,) have urged that if we commune with those who are not baptized, we shall increase their confidence in us, and so increase our influence over them, and thereby lead them to accept the truth on this subject. But the opposite is the truth. In like manner, and with equal inconsistency, have some urged that by keeping the Sunday they will retain their influence over Sunday-keepers, and thereby lead them to keep the Sabbath! A little reflection should teach them that their example will neutralize all they may say in favor of the truth. And nobody will highly regard a truth which you advocate in words but disregard in your life. By uniting in church privileges with those who are in material errors we indorse their standing, and so confirm them in error. Experience has shown that this has always been the effect of such a course. The following paragraph we copy from "Howell on Communion," as an illustration of this fact:—

"The father, I suppose we may so call him, of open communion, was the justly celebrated John Bunyan, author of the Pilgrim's Progress, and numerous other reputable works. He was pastor of the Baptist Church in Bedford, England. This venerable church admitted Pedobaptists, and as they were allowed all other privileges they could not be denied membership, or what was the same thing, the right of suffrage in the church-meetings, for it would be preposterous habitually to commune with a man and then not permit him to vote in ordinary matters, relating to the order and instruction of the congregation. The Bedford church was not so illiberal. But the consequences were fatal. The Pedobaptist party soon became the most numerous. On the discovery of this fact, they immediately took effectual measures, routed the Baptists, took possession of the meeting-house, called a Pedobaptist pastor, and from that time have generally held possession. 'Such was the state of the church,' says Mr. Kinghorn, 'with which he was long connected, that on his death they chose a Pedobaptist; and from the year 1688, in which he died, to the year 1788, when Mr. Joshua Symonds died (one hundred years), the ministers who succeeded him were Pedobaptists, except the last, who, some years after his settlement with the church, changed his sentiments and became a Baptist. This took place in 1772, and though Mr. Symonds continued at Bedford, it was on condition that he should not introduce the controversy [on baptism] into the pulpit, nor into conversation, unless it was first mentioned by others. We have also been informed that one instance occurred in 1700, and another in 1724, in which the church refused to grant a dismissal to members who desired to unite with Baptist churches in London, because they were strict communion churches.' Mr. Symonds was succeeded by Pedobaptist ministers. Here is a practical illustration of the advantages of open communion."

If it were true that our influence over others is increased by communing with them, and that they are thereby led to examine and embrace the truth, then we might with reason expect to find those churches most influential and prosperous which practice open communion. But such is not the case. The "Free Will Baptists" have made thorough trial of promiscuous communion, but they have not been as influential and prosperous as their brethren who had to bear the reproach of the title of "close communion." And this justifies our remark that free communion does not attract to an important truth held by us, but rather relieves the conscience of those not holding the truth. Instead of helping them we injure them by such a practice.