A Perplexed Sinner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 16, 1875

A Perplexed Sinner.

UNDER this head, we find the following pointed and truthful remarks in the N. Y. Weekly Sun, of Nov. 17, 1875:—

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN—Sir: I am a wayfaring man and a sinner. In common with hundreds of my fellow-sinners, I am seeking salvation; but between reading the Sun and hearing Mr. Moody I am greatly perplexed; for it is unfortunate that while Mr. Moody sets forth the humiliating doctrine “that our righteousness is as filthy rags,” and that before the divine law, our morality goes for nothing, the Sun holds that righteousness is the only test of true religion. Plain people, somehow, have always fallen into that error, for a fatal error it is from the orthodox point of view. Now, if what little righteousness I may have is not my own, whose is it? Human law proceeds upon the principle that men can and ought to obey the statutes of the land. I have read the Bible a good deal, and must confess that I find everywhere, in the Old and New Testaments, that God makes a great distinction between the righteous and the wicked. Christ answers the sinner’s question, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” throughout the gospels in these words, which I am sorry to say Mr. Moody rarely quotes: “Keep the commandments!” My sympathy was aroused a few days since in behalf of a young man whose friends requested prayers at the Tabernacle morning meeting for him, on the ground that he stood on his morality! This incorrigible young man awoke the profoundest pity of Mr. Moody, and the prayers for this poor benighted youth were so fervent as doubtless to be a great warning to other young men who make a profession of morality! A SINNER.

Now, though I am inclined to the Sun’s doctrine upon this great subject, yet the overshadowing influences the other way are so potent just now, that it is hard to determine what course to take. I want to be good; I want to do good. I desire to know the truth. My reason tells me to trust in God and do right. Orthodoxy says I am on dangerous ground, and proposes remedies which I cannot comprehend. It is a great thing to convert a soul from the error of his ways. Perhaps you can help me in my perplexity, and I am sure you will help thousands of others in a similar case.

To the foregoing, the Sun, under the heading, “The Perplexities of a Sinner,” makes the following pertinent reply. Every believer in the perpetuity of the law will feel well paid by its perusal.

In giving place elsewhere to the earnest and sincere letter of a perplexed “Sinner,” who thinks the religious views of the Sun are at variance with those of the Brooklyn revivalists, we desire to say that the Sun is always ready to propound, apply, and enforce, the fundamental truths of religion and morality, but must decline to enter upon any sectarian controversy. We are prepared to defend the ground we have taken, and which we desire to see Moody and Sankey standing upon. We maintain that true religion and true righteousness are one and inseparable, now and forever; that a truly religious man must live and act righteously; that the truth of a man’s religious mindedness must be tested by his righteous conduct; that genuine conversion consists in turning from evil ways to righteous ways; that a revival of religion, to be worth anything, must be a revival of righteousness; that an unrighteous religionist is a fraud; that a divorce of true religion from practical righteousness is impossible; and that any so-called revival of religion, the righteous fruits of which are not palpable, visible, manifest, and unmistakable, is mere shoddy and sham.

By this test we try all public revivals and all personal conversions that may present themselves to us. If any one of them cannot stand this test, we pronounce it bogus. If any of them seek to nullify it, or to shirk it, or to get around it, or to compromise regarding it, we can listen no further to any claims in behalf thereof. Does a religious revival transform the lives of those who feel its power? This is the question. If it does—good for the revival. If it does not—bad for the revival. We know the severity of such a test, but we also know the importance of the thing to be tested; and we furthermore know the damage and danger of deception, or self-deception, in regard to it. The sinners of Christ’s time said that his practical requirements were harder than they could bear; and many of them, after hearing his language, went away, unwilling to listen to such doctrine. But he did not try to suit them by changing his teachings or lowering his demands. He required practice as well as profession; duty as well as faith; a life as well as a sentiment. His example in this respect must be copied, at least, by those who call themselves his followers.

It may be all very pleasant for people who attend revival meetings to get into a state of mental exaltation or ecstasy, to have their spiritual nerves titillated and their souls set thrilling, to rhapsodize about their joys, and to indulge in shouting, singing, and hallelujahing. These experiences belong to a class of phenomena that are interesting to students of the human mind. But they are not true religion. They are not genuine conversion. They do not transform the life. A revivalist may work them up in his audiences without turning a single sinner from the error of his ways; and a man may enjoy them every day in the week, while yet he remains in the bondage of sin and under the dominion of the devil, utterly destitute of genuine religion. This religion is a thing that enters into the dividing of the soul and marrow. It reaches to the roots of life; it controls the body of life; it governs all the relations of life. It becomes the very life itself. By so much as it falls short of this, by just so much does it fall short of being true religion; and anything calling itself religion which does not thus exercise its influence, is a lie, a snare, and a delusion.

This position which we have taken in the Sun is not a novel one, though it doubtless seems both novel and startling to many of the enameled religionists of the day. We are sustained in it, and in every part of it, by the uniform teaching of the Scriptures, by the light of reason, by ancient tradition, and by the authority of the great religious expounders of all ages. If we might adopt one of the dramatic features to which Bro. Moody resorted the other day, we would produce convincing testimony on the subject. We would call Moses to the witness stand, bearing aloft the ten commandments; we would call the man of Uz to read the thirty-first chapter of Job; we would call the shepherd king of Israel to read the penitential psalms; we would call Solomon with his proverbs; we would call Isaiah with his prophecies; we would call all the great Hebrew prophets down to Malachi, and find that their voices on this subject were one.

Entering the New Testament, we would call to the witness stand John the Baptist; the authors of the gospels; Paul the apostle to the Gentiles; and so on down to the Apocalyptic John, who, in the very last chapter of Revelation, describes, not the opinions nor the emotions, but the character of those who, by “doing the commandments,” have “right to the tree of life.” We would call to the witness stand the Founder of Christianity himself, who came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them, and who declared the keeping of the commandments to be the real test of true faith. We would next show by the light of reason that in the very nature of things true religion cannot be a thing of the mind without being a thing of the life. And thus we would make use of our other authorities, if they seemed necessary to those who reject the Scriptures or do not possess the faculty of reason.

We are aware that an emotion may transform a life. One of the profoundest sermons of the eloquent preacher, Dr. Thomas Chalmers, is entitled, “The Expulsive Power of a New Affection;” and the title itself is a whole volume of suggestion to a thoughtful mind. He shows that when the new affection, by which he means the true religious affection, enters the mind and takes possession, its presence is incompatible with evil, and its “expulsive power” is soon made manifest by turning the man from his evil ways. This is precisely the point we have been urging; and we say that the test of true religion, true conversion, or a true revival, is that which the preacher thus enunciated. True religion and evil ways are incompatible.

We have said in these columns that the Brooklyn revivalists, Moody and Sankey, have not given proper prominence to this great doctrine; and we say it now again. They have ignored it altogether. Their hearers would never learn it from their preaching. We regard this as a fatal defect in their method and their operations, and have urged them to remedy it if they desired to make their revival advantageous to Brooklyn.

We have said that we should judge the revival by its practical, visible, manifest results. There is no other way of justly judging it. If its converts exemplify true religion in their works, ways, and lives, in their families, in society, in business, and in the world, we shall not conceal its value or power. But if it gives no such evidences of its influence, if its converts merely change their professions but not their practices, if they continue to walk in the ways of hell while pretending to be under divine guidance, if they flatter God with their lips and serve the devil with their hands, we can’t say that the revival has produced the genuine fruits of true religion.

Our perplexed correspondent, “A Sinner,” whose letter of inquiry to the Sun has prompted these thoughts, must excuse us for not entering into any sectarian disputation concerning faith and works as the means of salvation. The theological logomachists have written thousands of volumes on the subject, and we have nothing to add to them just now. We may tell “A Sinner,” however, since he is a man who reads and accepts the Scriptures, though he does not always quote them correctly, that he can test the real worth of the Brooklyn revival by the hint contained in the language of James, who said, “Faith without works is dead;” and who again said, “I will show thee my faith by my works.” And we may add that these would be good texts for Bro. Moody to take up before he leaves Brooklyn.