CONSERVATISM is defined, a desire for preserving whatever is established, a disinclination to change. Some are constitutionally conservative. They seem incapable of unlearning, or being retaught. They know what their fathers knew, and are content. To illustrate: I was at one time conversing with a man upon the Sabbath. He said his father kept Sunday, and he should. Fathers should be careful to do about right lest some of their sons may not have independence to think and read for themselves. Some are preoccupied and leave others to do their thinking upon nearly every subject. Those who love to be popular are not the ones to risk their popularity in co-operating with unpopular reforms. Others look upon it as a mark of fickleness. This may be true of some who are ready to jump at conclusions without investigation. No one should take a position without being able to give a reason.
Denominational prejudices with some are so strong that they are ready to fortify themselves against every aggression, as they are pleased to term it, and place themselves as sentinels, neither going in themselves nor suffering those who would to enter. Others fully persuaded of a truth lack moral courage to vindicate it. They hear the reviling from enemies. Always changing, say they. Many are accused of changing when they are only following in the opening of the prophecies, following the light and enjoying the accumulating rays, giving up no truth, but adding new. When our duty was plain in regard to temperance reform we added it to our list. When the light came on the question of slavery, our protest was ready, and equal rights were inscribed upon our banner. We let go no truth we possess, but add new. When we commence a study, we learn one thing at a time.
Our fathers had not the light on science or prophecies. Events come in order. The idea of the earth being round was ridiculed by the ancients, but who in the light of the nineteenth century would advocate the idea of its being flat? The laws of attraction were not understood, but who dares say now that an apple falls to the ground upon any other principle? That large bodies attract or draw smaller ones is an admitted fact. If our position is untrue, it can do us no harm. If true, we have nothing to fear from investigation. The truly wise and good of all ages have never feared or shunned investigation of any and every subject which interests the well-being of the world, present or future. Every advance step in arts, science, or religion, has met its opposition.
The prophecies, their opening and fulfilment, have met the same; and the wonder is that its strongest opposers are found among its professed friends. Paul did not shun controversy when any great truth was to be defended. Would such a man as the learned and eloquent Paul, who was caught up to the third Heaven and heard things which it was not lawful for a man to utter, would such a man flee? Let him answer. When advised of impending danger by his earnest, weeping friends, he said, “None of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I may finish my course with joy and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.” He was ready to throw himself into the gap in defense of God’s truth, though it should cost him his life. He was no time-server. He fought not as one that beateth the air. He knew whereof he affirmed; yet he was accused of turning the world upside down by his strange doctrines. The more noble and honorable investigated, and as a result many believed. They found that those men who were accused of turning the world upside down were only preaching God’s word faithfully.
A. P. LAWTON
Dupont's Failure at Charleston Harbor
Admiral Dupont was once explaining to Farragut the reason why he failed to enter Charleston Harbor with his fleet of iron clads. He gave this reason, and that reason, and the other reason; and Farragut remained silent until he had got through, and then said, “Ah, Dupont, there was one more reason.” “What is that?” “You didn’t believe you could do it!”
Papal Indulgences.
By A. SMITH
According to a card that recently, by accident, came into my possession, there is, among Roman Catholics, an association called the “Society of the Angel Guardian.” I copy the following from the card in question, which is a certificate of membership:
Every person contributing one dollar shall be a member of this Society for one year after such contribution. The following indulgences have been accorded to the members by the Holy Father, Pius IX.
“1. A Plenary Indulgence on the day of admission.
“2. A Plenary Indulgence each year on the 2d of October, which is the Feast of the Angel Guardian.
“3. A Plenary Indulgence at the hour of death.
“4. A Partial Indulgence of three hundred days as often as the members shall recite a Pater Ave and Gloria Patri in honor of the Angel Guardian.
“A Mass will be celebrated every month for all members, and other benefactors; and a special Mass of Requiem will be offered for each deceased member when due notice shall have been given of the death, to Rev. __________.
“N. B. Any one wishing to become a member can do so by sending name, with One Dollar, as above, by mail. A donation of Ten Dollars entitles the giver to a Life Membership.
“PRAYER TO OUR ANGEL GUARDIAN. O Angel of God, to whose care I am committed by the supreme clemency, illumine, keep, guide and guard me this day (or night).”
The certificate bears date of Oct. 1, 1870, and is duly signed.
According to Webster the term indulgence, as used in the Roman Catholic Church, signifies “remission of the punishment due to sins.”
The Roman Church believes in works of supererogation, and this superabundant goodness is laid up in store with the merits of Christ, and can be conferred by the pope at pleasure upon any person for money.
According to a book entitled, “Tax of the sacred Roman Chancery,” the price of an indulgence for the crime of robbery or arson was twelve shillings, while for incest or murder it was only seven shillings and six cents.
Roman Catholics are no doubt ashamed of the blasphemous teachings of Tetzel, whom Luther so successfully combatted in Germany, but it is wonderful that so many should still be found, in this enlightened age, who can submit to be imposed upon by the ridiculous pretensions of Pius IX. A. SMITH.
Are we Awake?
By M. S. Avery
We, as a people, profess great and sacred truths; and that we are living in the last days of earth's history is plainly to be seen by any close observer of the events that are continually transpiring.
Without a doubt the second advent of our divine Lord is near, even at the door. Soon his mediation in Heaven is finished; and very soon the angelic throng will escort him from the bright courts of glory down to this dark world of sin.
Are we awake to this, and to the fact that he is coming for his people only; those who have waited for and followed him; and to call from the dusty bed of ages, all the righteous who yet rest in hope, waiting for the day of deliverance, the fulfilment of the promise, when their shackles shall be broken, and they shall live again?
We know the world, with all its delusive charms, is passing rapidly, and can but a little longer be our abiding place; and do we feel the importance of securing an interest in Heaven? or shall we remain indifferent, seek the honors and applause of the world, and finally with it pass away?
How can believers of our Bible faith live in apathy, and neglect their souls salvation? Oh! that we may each study more earnestly to be approved of God, to know his word, and to know ourselves, and understand just what we must be daily, in order that our lives and profession may be acceptable to him.
Do we love the world, and the selfish pleasures of it, less than when we believed? Are we better neighbors, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives? are we better parents, better children? are we better Christians?
Is home made happier, pleasanter or better, for our religion? are the inmates of that sanctuary joyful in our presence, or only in our absence? Have we a kindly look and word for all? or are smiles and kindness, reserved only for certain persons, places, and occasions; but harsh, stern, and bitter words, dealt unsparingly to the home circle? There is need of watchfulness, that our faith and hope be not in vain, and that “no man take our crown.”
We may possess much regard for the Sabbath, we may attend all the great gatherings of our people, and love to listen to the soul-inspiring truths that are there taught; we may dwell with delight on the glorious themes of inspiration, and loudly and earnestly contend for them, yet all this will not avail, unless the daily life corresponds therewith; for without the “meek and quiet spirit” of the Master, we are none of his.
Then if we would render to God an acceptable service, we must “put off the old man with his deeds,” and be renewed in the heart, walking no longer in darkness, but let the sweet fruits of the spirit, among which are love, gentleness, &c., be manifest in all we do. For God looks at the heart, and although his throne is in Heaven, yet his eyes behold and his eyelids try the children of men. Oh! that we may all be doers of the word, and not hearers only; for God is not mocked and we cannot deceive him, for he knoweth them that are his. Then inasmuch as we have named the name of Christ, let us depart from all iniquity. It is time that we awake to these things; and may grace and strength be given us to overcome fully all the evils of our natures, doing all to the glory of the Lord, that by our example we may gather with him, and not scatter abroad; and then when weary of earth's pilgrimage, we can look up in confidence, and contemplate the Christian's home in glory; the palms, the robes, and the crowns that await us. Life in the kingdom is worth all our effort; let us awake then, press forward, overcome, and victory will soon be ours.
M. S. Avery.
Sermons Must Have Blades
PASSING along the road the other day we thought we had found a very beautiful knife. On picking it up, it was found to be only a handle without a blade. So do we hear very beautiful sermons—well written and well read—but they are without a blade. They cut out no cancers of sin, and carve out no models of piety. Sermons must have blades.
The Power of Kind Thoughts and Words
WHAT a new world we should live in if we would only allow every kind thought that comes to blossom into words and deeds.
Sunday-Keeping—Is It of Rome?
By Uriah Smith
The claim that the Christian Church is indebted to the papacy for Sunday as a Christian institution, rests upon manifold proofs.
We have, first, the prophecy (Dan. 7:25) that the papal power should undertake to change the law of God; and it is easy to show that what the Church of Rome has attempted to do in changing the Sabbath, is a most explicit fulfillment of the prophecy; and further, that no other event can be found which can be claimed as a fulfillment, and if that has not fulfilled the prophecy, then the prophecy has failed.
We have, secondly, the testimony of history showing how the first day of the week was lifted up among festival days, till finally that power which attempted to dictate respecting both faith and practice to all the churches, claiming to be the head over all, even Christ’s vicegerent upon earth, endeavored to enforce it upon all as a divine institution.
We have, thirdly, the doctors of the Catholic church expressly claiming that their church has changed the Sabbath, that it had the right and power to change it, that its success in putting Sunday in place of the Sabbath, is proof of its right in this respect, and that all who observe Sunday as the Lord’s day, thereby acknowledge the right of that church to institute festivals of precept, and therefore act inconsistently when they refuse to observe other festivals ordained by the same church. And this teaching they put into their standard catechisms for the instruction of their children; and the priests and all Catholics who are intelligent in regard to their faith, will tell us that such is the position of that church respecting the institution of the first-day Sabbath.
But here an attempt is made to nullify all this evidence by the assertion that we do not receive the institution of the Sunday-Sabbath from the Catholics, but from the apostles; and that Romanists themselves claim that the change was made by apostolic authority, and hence that it is wholly wrong to call Sunday-keeping a papal observance.
We recently received a letter from a Methodist minister, who had just read the tract published at this Office, entitled, “Who changed the Sabbath?” in which are given extracts from Catholic catechisms in which they claim to have made the change. Our clerical friend thought we were appealing to the prejudices of the people on the Sabbath question. We replied that we were not appealing to prejudice, but to facts; that we claim no more than what the Catholic church itself claims, that it has made the change, and that we are indebted to it for the Sunday-Sabbath. He replies that the catechism of the Council of Trent claims “that the change was made during apostolic times, and was done by apostolic authority.” And he adds, “If your authorities are correctly quoted, of which fact I have no doubt, it simply shows the want of harmony in that church respecting this question; but as my authority is that of a Council, and ‘published by command of Pope Pius the Fifth,’ it will stand against all the individual writers that can be brought on the other side.”
The catechisms from which we quote do not rest upon merely individual authority. They are not the expression simply of individual opinion, but published by authority, and used for the education of Catholic children everywhere. And we may be sure that a church which exercises such untiring and keen surveillance over all the literature that goes into the hands of its members, would not tolerate any lack of harmony in the fundamental principles which they teach their children.
That the Catholic church claims that the change was made in apostolic times, we are well aware. For instance, in one of the catechisms quoted in the tract above mentioned, in answer to the question, “What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday, preferable to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday?” this answer is given: “We have for it the authority of the Catholic church, and apostolic tradition.” Now because they refer it to apostolic times and apostolic tradition, does that invalidate their claim and ours that it is an institution of the Catholic church? Let us look at this point candidly.
The rule of the Protestant is, that whatever is taught in the Bible, we can find there as well as others, so that there is no need of tradition in the matter. But do the Romanists claim that this change of the Sabbath can be proved from the Bible? By no means. On the contrary, they say that “the Scriptures do not in particular mention this change” (Cath. Chris. Instructed); and after referring to Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; and Rev. 1:10, they say, “Neither the one nor the other [of these texts] tells us that the first day of the week was to be henceforth the day of worship, and the Christian Sabbath; so that truly the best authority we have for this is the testimony and ordinance of the church.” (Id.) They further speak of it as “a change for which there is no scriptural authority,” and say that Protestants do not find for their practice in this respect any “permission clearly laid down in the sacred volume.” (Doctrinal Catechism.) They call it a change “that cannot be evidently proved from any text of Scripture.” (Robt. Manning.) And they even go so far as to say that it is “against the plain letter of the Bible.”
Thus the Catholic claims no apostolic authority for the change except what rests upon tradition; but the Protestant does not admit tradition as of any authority in matters of faith; therefore the Catholic reference to apostolic authority for the change of the Sabbath is not of such a kind as Protestants can endorse at all.
All Protestants are ready to admit that purgatory, prayers for the dead, and invocation of the saints, are Catholic doctrines, and rest upon the authority of the Catholic church; yet that church claims apostolic authority in these matters, even more distinctly than for the change of the Sabbath; not written out, to be sure, in the New Testament, but resting on tradition; and they throw it into the face of all Protestants, that if they could produce no better proof for these doctrines, than Protestants can produce for first-day observance, then might Protestants indeed have good cause to laugh them to scorn.
This brings us to the second stage of the answer to the question whether the Catholic appeal to apostolic authority for Sunday-keeping invalidates our claim that it is a Romish institution. The fact already established that they have no apostolic authority except what rests upon tradition, destroys it for all Protestants. But there is something more. When we search for the so-called Christian Sabbath, as a historical fact, where do we find it? In the apostles’ days? No. In the age immediately following? No. It is not till we come down well into the centuries, to that period which developed in its strength the great apostasy, that we find it taking its place authoritatively in the church; and then we find Sylvester, one in that line of the bishops of Rome now called popes, formally giving to Sunday the imposing title of “Lord’s Day,” and enforcing it by the unrepealed law of Constantine which, before his conversion to Christianity, he enacted in behalf of Sunday as a heathen festival. This is the time, and these the circumstances under which, Sunday-keeping first appears in fact, as a Christian institution of binding obligation. Every one will acknowledge that it is just to attribute the origin of any institution to that people among whom, and by whose instrumentality, it first appears. But the Catholics say Sunday is of apostolic authority. What of that? So they say of all their errors and corruptions. But when we search the apostolic writings, and do not find them, oh! they tell us, they rest on tradition. And Sunday-keeping rests right there too. Are not all these things then of Roman Catholic origin? and do not all who receive them take them from that church?
To illustrate: Suppose any church of the present day, the Methodist for instance, should succeed in introducing and establishing some new practice. Suppose they should say then that it was not their own, but was introduced by the apostles. Would it make any difference what they should claim in regard to its apostolic origin, if we could not find it there? None at all. Every one would say that such institution was wholly a Methodist concern; and this would be a correct decision. Just so with the Sunday-Sabbath. Facts, applied according to the same principle, show it to be wholly a Romish institution.
U. S.
Eloquent Testimony.
By Uriah Smith
Croley, in his work on the Apocalypse (London, 1828), pp. 232–235, bears testimony which very clearly elucidates a statement made by the prophet Daniel in chapter 8:12. Daniel says, “And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression.” There is no doubt that in this and the verses that immediately precede it, Daniel is speaking of the pagan and papal forms of the Roman Empire. The religion of Rome, for more than the first thousand years of its existence, was paganism. Then a strange transition occurred. A mixture of Christianity with paganism, produced the papacy. The prophet, therefore, has the task of presenting virtually two kingdoms in one; and while he has to denote the unity by the use of a single symbol, he has also to indicate the change which made the two divisions of its history as distinct as separate kingdoms. We therefore read the language with this understanding: “And an host [a multitude of people] was given him [the papal abomination] against the daily [the pagan abomination, sacrifice being the wrong word to supply, and the daily referring to paganism] by reason of transgression [that is, by the hideous caricatures of Christianity by which the papacy sought to gain over to itself the superstitious and ignorant tribes of barbarians that overran the Roman Empire].” All of which stands out in bold relief in the following statements by Mr. Croley:—
A. D. 390. Christianity was finally established by Theodosius. The western empire stained with Christian blood was thenceforth broken up, and filled with the northern tribes. Before the close of the sixth century ten barbarian kingdoms were formed in Europe.
Their names and number are stated by Machiavel,certainly an unconscious interpreter of Scripture; the dates are furnished by Bishop Lloyd. 1. The Huns in Hungary, A. D. 356. 2. Ostrogoths in Moesia, 377. 3. Visigoths in Pannonia, 378. 4. Franks in France, 407. 5. Vandals in Africa, 407. 6. Sueves and Alans in Gascoigne and Spain, 407. 7. Burgundians in Burgundy, 407. 8. Heruli and Turingi in Italy, 476. 9. Saxons and Angles in Britain, 476. 10. Lombards began to reign in Hungary, 526, were seated in the north of Germany in 483, and finally settled in the north of Italy. This division had been twice prophesied by Daniel, Dan. 2 and 7, “the ten horns are ten kings.” Dan. 7:24. Those kingdoms all adopted the faith which in the sixth century emanated from Rome. The papacy established its influence over the ten sovereignties of the western empire; and paganism, revived from the dead, began its new career under its new form.
The spirit of the ancient Roman paganism consisted in ceremonial pomp, founded on fables, and constructed with a view to attract the people; in the worship of dead men, whom it deified; in the worship of images, which it honored with prayer, hymns, and incense; and in persecution of the Christian church. Popery was its heir in all those things in the face of the Christian world. It differed from the elder paganism in worshiping, by the name of the Virgin, the statue which its predecessor worshiped by the name of a goddess, and kissing the feet of St. Peter, for those of Jove.
But Roman paganism with all its arts was simplicity itself to the new master of its throne. It was a thing of external glitter, and there its powers and its ambition closed; it solicited no hold upon the mind; it had none of those keener and fiercer instruments of grasp and possession, the fangs and claws, that were yet to strike into the very marrow of mankind. It was a luxurious and giddy, a splendid, and sometimes a profligate exhibition, laughed at by the higher minds, amusing to the multitude, popular and pleasant to all; the graver game of the idle and self-indulgent nations of the south; a more serious shape of human pleasure, gratifying the worshiper by some empty sense of duty done without restraint upon his passions, and keeping his vanity awake without disturbing the slumber of his conscience. It went down to the grave for a time with its idle generation. But, when it returned to the world, a great revolution had passed over the surface. It found the old system of society broken into ruin irreparable, a host of new nations with new and rival interests, a bolder temperament, and a manlier intellectual capability, struggling for mastery, sword in hand, on the soil which had once lain smooth and uniform as the slavery that moved over it. It found a still sterner trial in the presence of the true religion, that stood even in that day of adversity, like its Lord in the wilderness, the sign to the evil spirit that his time was at hand; and putting his proudest temptation to shame.
To fight its battle through this iron multitude up to empire, other means were essential than the feeble contrivances of the past. A kingdom and a priesthood, it must seek conquests and converts, and it must obtain the one without an army and the other without the gospel. Auricular confession, absolution, indulgences, miracles of bones, images, and pictures, and, to crown the whole stupendous imposture, transubstantiation, the claim of man to be the maker of God! were the guilty and powerful means by which paganism, new risen, forced its way through the tumult of nations,—the spells by which weakness was made stronger than strength; which turned the Lombard and the Norman, that had cloven down the Roman Empire, into the nerveless slaves of Rome; and bowed in worship the bold barbarian crowns and helmets of the north and west before the feet of a monk and an Italian.
U. S.
Mesmerism, Psychology, and Spiritualism as Satanic Deception
By Joseph Harvey Waggoner
Mesmerism.
It has been supposed by some that the “three unclean spirits like frogs,” Rev. 16:13, are mesmerism, psychology, and spiritualism. Whether this be correct or not, there can be no reason given why these three forms of satanic deception are not combined in the work ascribed to “the spirits of devils.” In the Old Testament every form of witchcraft is given in enumerating “the abominations of the heathen.” Deut. 18:9-12. They are different members of the same family, or different phases of the same work.
Mesmerism prepared the way for psychology, as psychology prepared the way for spiritualism. Mesmerism was claimed to be a veritable “science,” yet its phenomena were never satisfactorily accounted for. While it had enough of the appearance of the supernatural to excite the wonder of mankind, its operators claimed enough for it as a science to put people off their guard as to its origin and influence.
Psychology presented many of the same characteristics, yet it outdid mesmerism by its wonders, and in the almost complete control which the operators had over the subjects, while both asleep and awake. The first was exercised by “manipulating” the subject; the other by “passes.” The effects in both cases were very much alike. The resemblance was so strong that they who watched them with care became satisfied that they were closely allied to each other.
Spiritualism was just about as much in advance of psychology as that was of mesmerism. But that they are also allied to each other is shown in that mediums are known to exert control over others by the same means resorted to by psychological operators. The mediums themselves are as truly “mesmerized” as was ever a “subject” by a human “operator.”
We have believed from first to last that the whole work, in whatever phase it presents itself, is of satanic origin. While many in various churches, both of the clergy and lay members, believe in mesmerism and accept the claims of spiritualism, namely, that the dead can and do communicate with the living, Adventists have, to a great extent, rejected spiritualism on the ground that “the dead know not anything,” and therefore have not the power to communicate. And as all these workings seem to be so nearly allied, they have rejected the whole as only evil. So well agreed have all classes of Adventists been on this point that I have known only one Adventist minister who ever openly advocated the claims of mesmerism.
Some even now think that because mesmerism is claimed to be a science, and comes in a form so much milder than spiritualism, or mediumship, it is not dangerous. But careful investigation will convince them that the effects of mesmeric control and of mediumship are just alike in kind, if not in degree. A subject who is frequently operated upon by a mesmerizer becomes nervously affected, and loses will power. And this is the general effect of mediumship. For this reason a good mesmeric subject is decided to be a good medium, or susceptible to the control of “the spirits.”
And for this reason “clairvoyant physicians,” and manipulating or mesmerizing doctors of all kinds, should be carefully avoided. They who are prostrated by sickness are, generally, easily operated upon by such practitioners; but the danger to the nervous system is great. The greatest danger, however, is in this, that the patients are left in a condition to easily become subjects of “spirit control.”
“We are not ignorant of Satan’s devices.” Yet no amount of knowledge will secure us against the influence of “the spirits of devils.” We have known those who were well acquainted with the theory of Bible truth, and looked upon spiritualism as evil in its nature and satanic in its origin, and yet the evidence was too strong to reject, that they were involuntary, or unconsciously, mediums. They who have watched this matter with carefulness are aware that mediums are far more in number than is generally supposed. Many are really mediums who are neither reputed to be such, nor are they aware of the fact. A109holy life is the only security against Satan’s wiles and power.
“The Lord knoweth them that are his,” and he will keep them. But we must remember that it is not every one that says to Jesus, “Lord, Lord, that shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in Heaven.”
J. H. WAGGONER.
Truth Untouched by Outward Defilement
TRUTH is as impossible to be soiled by any outward touch as the sunbeam.
DUTY OF CHURCH MEMBERS TO EACH OTHER
By George I. Butler
Thoughts on Church Government.—No. 7.
DUTY OF CHURCH MEMBERS TO EACH OTHER.
While it is true that the special oversight of the church belongs to the elder, and he has duties growing out of this relation that none other has, yet there are many responsibilities resting upon members, in consequence of their taking upon themselves the obligations of church fellowship. What is the object of church association? It is the benefit which may be obtained by uniting together for a common object. That common object should be the perfection of character which will make us acceptable to God, and thus secure us eternal life and happiness. The mutual relations we sustain to each other in the Christian church are designed to be an assistance to us in securing this object. It is supposed that a number of disciples uniting in church relation may so influence and assist each other that they can make better progress than one alone.
The Bible takes this for granted and prescribes the duties connected with this relation. We do not say that this good object is always obtained by such association. Indeed, we fear that the opposite is sometimes realized. But this is because God’s directions are not carried into effect. Therefore it is important that we consider these with care.
We recognize the possibility of church association becoming corrupt. Then certainly “evil communications will corrupt good manners.” We should most carefully guard against this terrible perversion; for if that which is designed to be an instrument of man’s salvation becomes the agent of his destruction, the result is terrible. What, then, are the obligations of church members toward each other in church fellowship? In this, they mutually obligate themselves to watch over each other for their mutual good, and to so conduct themselves that their influence upon each other will be salutary.
The Bible commands us to meet together in religious worship, thus calling the mind out in devotion to God. “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” Heb. 10:25. Here is a solemn duty made obligatory upon each one. “Exhorting one another” implies a mutual act on the part of all. There are no exceptions given. The benefit of this is very great as a means of grace to help us in the formation of such a character as we must obtain. We cannot make as great improvement without it. All of us need to develop the gift which God has given us, whether it be one talent, or ten. If all really love God and want to serve him, they will wish to talk of him, and of the goodness and mercy he is bestowing.
The confession of Christ, of our love, and interest in him, is a religious duty, which we owe to others and ourselves. A neglect on our part to manifest any interest in religious worship, by taking no part, is an evidence, so far as it goes, that we have no interest in it. Our influence, then, to that extent, goes against the worship of God which himself has commanded. Our example over others, then, is bad, and we are not faithful in our church relation. Great importance is to be attached to religious worship. All are commanded to take part in it.
The duty of church members toward each other embraces the whole range of moral duty which man owes to his fellow-men, and certain special duties growing out of church relation. We cannot, of course, go into particulars and define all of the former class without writing volumes. The whole Bible contains our instruction pertaining to these general duties. But we would notice some of these special duties growing out of church fellowship. In this, individuals are brought into a great family, God being our father, and Jesus Christ our elder brother, and all of us brethren and sisters. This is a close relation. Says Christ, “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another, as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” “This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.” John. 13:34, 35, and 15:12. Says John, “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren.” 1 John 3:14. Here we see a special relation, evidenced by the highest love ever seen in the universe, a willingness even to die for another. And this love our Saviour commands us to have. He had it.
It does not consist of letting our brethren go to ruin, without making an effort to see their faults for fear we shall hurt their feelings. Our Saviour did not pursue this course, but plainly spoke of his disciples’ faults. But love must prompt our action. We must do it, not to gratify our feelings, but because it will be for the benefit of others. What a power in the world the church might be if it would obey this command of Christ.
I boldly affirm that love should lie at the foundation of every action taken in the church in correcting wrongs. It is never allowable to act in such things from selfishness. While selfishness is the principle which actuates the mass of mankind love should be the motive of the Christian. If this was the case, there would be a powerful, yea, almost irresistible, attraction drawing others toward them. But now there is so much selfishness in the church, so many squabbles for precedence, so much backbiting, envy, covetousness, and everything of this nature, that men can see little to desire in church fellowship. That which Christ gave as an evidence of true discipleship is hardly to be found.
The only way church members can do to restore this grace is to carry out the Scripture directions themselves, regardless of how others may conduct themselves, and thus be sure, on their part, to set the proper example. By thus doing, they are sure to perfect a proper character and secure salvation, and may also be the means of saving others through their influence.
Let us notice a few more scriptures bearing on this point. Says Paul, “Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honor preferring one another.” Rom. 12:10. Here is an almost infallible prescription for the cure of church difficulties. Let any member pursue this course in sincerity, giving others the precedence and trying to do them good, even suffering abuse and wrong, without anger and complaint, taking occasion by this to learn a lesson of patience and resignation. Will he be the cause of church trials? Never. Will it be a real loss to himself? No. He will cast a positive influence in favor of Christ and his love. He will be a peacemaker, upon whom the Saviour pronounces a blessing. Thus will he benefit himself and others. This spirit, however, will not keep him from standing up for right, and upholding those called to oversee when a wrong-doer is called to account. Then it will be important that such a one should perceive his wrong and acknowledge it.
Again, Paul says, “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind; let each esteem other better than themselves.” “Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” “Likewise ye younger, submit yourselves to the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility; for God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.” Phil. 2:3–5; Eph. 5:21; 1 Peter 5:5. “Oh!” says one, “I can’t submit to my brethren.” Will you disobey a plain command of God and show yourself unworthy to be a Christian? for this is as plainly commanded as any duty in these very scriptures. And, more than this, you deprive yourself of the greatest blessing you could obtain. It will sometime be realized that it is a terrible thing to have our own way.
Happiness is the true result of cherishing the meek and quiet spirit. “Learn of me,” says Jesus. “I am meek and lowly of heart.” It is a good lesson, dear friends, however much we may despise it. Church association helps us to learn it if we make the right use of it. “For there must be heresies (sects, schisms,) among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” 1 Cor. 11:19. How is this to be accomplished? Why, those who are not reproved will show forth the natural passions of the human heart, stubbornness, pride, passion, hatred, wrath, strife, and such like, while those who are, will be meek, submissive, patient, kind, tender and long-suffering; thus showing that they have the graces of the Spirit of God.
It is possible for us to exemplify this spirit in our daily lives, and with our brethren in the church many such examples are needed. We owe special duties to the children of God. “As we have opportunity let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” Gal. 6:10.
The church member should show this special regard to his brother. How important that all our members should walk in harmony with one another, and thus show themselves members of the family of God. Divisions are always an evidence of little religion. They show that the flesh and not the spirit, has the supremacy. Brethren, let us walk together in love.