Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 51, No. 21.

CHURCH ORDER

Review and Herald

May 23, 1878

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 23, 1878

CHURCH ORDER.

By A. S. Hutchins

BY ELD. A. S. HUTCHINS.
TEXT: “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.” 1 Cor. 14:33.
No work can compare in importance with the work of the church of God, as she goes forth upon her mission of love, bearing beams of sacred light to a perishing world. The voice of the Master is, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” And Paul writes to Titus: “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting.” Titus 1:5.
Casting our minds back to ancient Israel, we behold the order ordained of God. In their journeyings and in their encampments, there must be order. In all their devotional exercises,—in their songs of praise, in their hours of worship, and in their sacrifices and offerings,—the strictest order must prevail. Tabernacle and temple service must be respected, and everywhere, in all their vast assemblies, everything must proclaim, “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.”
James testifies: “Wherever envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.” The marginal reading for confusion in each of these texts, is, tumult, or, unquietness. Wherever these elements prevail, whether in families, churches, or communities, it is certain the peace of God does not rule; and no heart that cherishes them can prosper spiritually. They are from the source from which every evil work springs.
Envy is defined to be vexation at another’s good. It is classed among the works of the flesh. It not only led Cain to be very wroth, and his countenance to fall, but it led him to take the life of his brother. And to-day it burns and wrangles in the bosom of thousands who profess the religion of the meek and lowly Lamb of God. And respecting strife, Solomon says, “The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water: therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with.”
The peace which God ordains in all the churches proceeds from heavenly wisdom, and is one of the fruits of the Spirit, and as love is the bond of perfectness, so peace is the bond of union in the church of Christ. “Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Eph. 4:3.
1. Then to secure and maintain church order there must be union with Christ, the great Head of the church, the true Vine, from whence we derive nourishment and strength. He is the chief corner-stone, uniting all Israel under both houses. Through him both have access to the Father by one Spirit. “In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” Eph. 2:22. Here is a sure foundation, planned and laid by heavenly wisdom. “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
2. There must be union one with another. The church is called the body of Christ. The union and harmonious action of the members of the natural body are referred to by the apostle to illustrate the union and harmony which should characterize that body composed of true believers. Mark the sacred and close connection with Christ which it is our privilege to enjoy: “We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” Eph. 5:30.
It is unbelief, it is disobedience, it is sin, that separates hearts, leads to darkness, and prevents Christian fellowship. There is a message which if obeyed both unites hearts and cleanses from all sin: “This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth; but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” 1 John 1:5–7.
3. The union which believers in, and followers of, Christ, thus cleansed from all sin, may and should enjoy while struggling against the powers of darkness and for victory in the name of Jesus, is not alone a union of spirit, or a mutual agreement, to “differ in love,” but it contemplates a unity of faith. The apostle wrote to his brethren at Philippi: “If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.” Phil. 2:1, 2. And to the church at Rome, he wrote: “Be of the same mind one toward another.” “Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus.” On the subject of the unity of faith, he wrote to the brethren at Corinth: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment.” 1 Cor. 1:10.
For the unity and oneness of the church, as a convincing evidence to the world that the Father had sent him, the Son earnestly prayed, “that they may be one, even as we are one.” And when his work was completedhere, and he ascended on high, he gave gifts unto men. The apostle expressly declares their object to be, the perfecting of the saints, the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come unto the unity of the faith.
4. Order in the church cannot exist without some form of organization. That adopted by Seventh-day Adventists, “covenanting together to keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus, taking the name of Seventh-day Adventists,” is both simple and effectual. Holding the Bible as our rule of faith, as our great subject book and text book, we may walk in that light which shineth more and more unto the perfect day.
5. Every church must have its officers. There must be an elder or elders, or a leader, and of necessity a clerk; and many churches need a deacon or deacons. Paul left Titus in Crete, not only to set things in order, but to ordain elders in every city. The qualifications of the elder and deacon are clearly set forth in Paul’s first letter to Timothy; and in writing to Titus he dwells upon the same thought respecting the blameless life of the elder or bishop.
If congregations gathered by the truths of the third angel’s message wait till they find all the desired qualifications of the elder, without first giving him experience, they may wait too long. It seems to me the graces and qualifications set forth in Paul’s letters as those which the elder should possess, are rather attainments which he should seek for than qualities he should absolutely possess at first. The church does not wait, in the case of the young man chosen and ordained and sent forth to preach the gospel, for a development of all that soundness of judgment, depth of experience, or maturity of years, which it is hoped he may attain unto as he devotes his energies and life to the service of the Master, in his vineyard. Then when it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to the church, to make choice of one to serve in the capacity of a local elder, or leader of the church, why not give him a chance to gain knowledge in spiritual things, and to settle into the work of God, by experience? Why settle back, or why turn and draw in an opposite direction, if our minds are not always met? Why whisper and backbite, and say unkind and unchristian things about the leader, instead of praying for him?
In dwelling upon the relation existing between the elder and the church, Peter gives the members instruction as well as the leader. He had been a witness of the sufferings of Christ, he had shamefully denied his Lord, but heartily repented. He had become advanced in life, and years had given him experience; he had partaken of the glory that will be revealed when the Master shall come again. He was a suitable man to counsel the elders and the church. Let us hear him:—
“Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility; for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.” 1 Pet. 5:2–5.
The relation of one to another in the church of God is too sacred to be marred by jealousies, contentions, and insubordination. A living, warm-hearted, and stirring elder in the church is one of its greatest blessings; he is its brightest light, the very soul of its organization. The church thus favored, which have learned to esteem the leader, and stand by him, may expect the blessing of God to rest upon their efforts, and experimentally may know the joy and blessedness of being at peace among themselves.

THE PARABLE OF THE LABORERS VINDICATED.

By W. H. Littlejohn

BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.
Go labor in my vineyard, The Master calls to-day; Go labor in my vineyard, And what is right I'll pay.
No matter if the morning Or noon of life be past, To him who comes when bidden, The price is sure at last.
Nor let the weary toiler Through life's long, dreary day Be envious of his brother, Because of equal pay.
What matter if the penny To those alike be given Who've labored from the noon-tide, And those who've longer striven?
Are not the wages offered Of greater value far Than labors of a short life, Or e'en the longest, are?
And is it not my province With that which I have won To pay, when thus preferring, For labor never done?
But—leaving for the present The right I have supreme E'en with my own of doing As good to me may seem—
What word have I e'er spoken, Or action e'er done, To make you fear that justice In future I should shun?
Perhaps you've read in story The parable I told Of workmen in the market Who idle stood of old.
It may be that the moral Which there I sought to teach Did much offend your judgment, And your best sense impeach;
But come and let us reason, Perhaps the end will show Your fears to be ungrounded, Your sense of justice low.
Pray tell me in the outset What principle should rule, When equity we seek for In more than mortal school.
Ought Master of the vineyard Of heavenly vintage green To make the service rendered The measure of esteem?
Or would it be with reason More consonant by far To make the will the standard With those who willing are?
Which is it that the Maker Of wheeling worlds above More prizes in the creature, His service or his love?
What function has our labor In fixing our reward? Has it intrinsic value With an almighty Lord?
Or is it only useful As evidence to all, That he who puts it forth now Thus heeds the Master's call?
But if to it a value As proof alone be given, Might he not furnish proof, too, Who never yet has striven?
If thus he should be able His faithfulness to prove, Must not the Lord reward him With token of his love?
Now if so be you'll answer, As sure I am you must, That such a course, in reason, Would equal be and just,
Then turn once more and ponder “The parable I told Of workmen in the market Who idle stood of old.”
Why were they in the market? Why idle stood they there? What, in the well-known story, Did all alike declare?
Was't not because they waited, With anxious looks and sad, For some one to employ them, And thus their hearts make glad?
Since this is true, their motives Were every way correct; And if they did not labor, 'Twas not their own neglect.
Because no man hath called us,— The reason they assigned,— Was manifestly truthful, And proved the willing mind.
Now, since the worthy Master, Who sought their service late, Knew well their patient waiting, And pitied much their fate,
He gave to each the penny, As each alike deserved; His verdict wisely finding, That “he who waited served.”
But, throwing off the figure To make the matter plain, Suppose that there's a heathen Of honest heart and mien.
He lives in moral darkness, And yet he longs for light; Toward God he ever reaches, And, waiting, prays for sight.
His years are very many, His form is bowed with age; His eyes now shine but dimly, Yet there he stands, a sage.
Resisting oft temptation With reason's feeble ray, He would illume the pathway Which leads to perfect day.
The Father sees him waiting, And hears his earnest cry; He sends that way a witness This aged man to try.
Just as his sun is setting, Ere yet his day is done, He hears the wondrous story Of God, and Christ the Son.
Receiving all with rapture, The gospel he proclaims With the strength he has remaining, And most unselfish aims.
He dies; and in the Judgment What crown ought he to wear, If not of that the equal Which life-long Christians share?
Without the consolations Which in the word are found, The right he lived out nobly, He nobly held his ground.
And when the gospel story His aged ear awoke, It found him more than ready To wear its easy yoke.
Proved both by want and plenty; By darkness and by light; The crucial tests he suffered Of blindness and of sight.
Where can you find a Christian, However good and free, Who e'er more proof could furnish Of loyalty than he?
Till this is done, however, You must admit as fair The principle I pleaded, That both alike should share.
The rock on which you stumble, The error which you made, Consisted in confounding The characters portrayed.
You thought that I had reference To those in Christian lands, Who early are converted, And one who longer stands.
Not so, at all, as logic Will clearly demonstrate; Since now in lands called Christian, No man need ever wait.
To him the call was given When first he heard the truth; Which was in early childhood, Or, later still, in youth.
If, then, he longer loitered,— Till noon, or e'en till seven,— He cannot plead the promise To faithful heathen given.
Though life to him be granted His crown will not compare With one he would have sported Had he obeyed with care.
The Christian of a long life, The faithful heathen too, Will far surpass in honor This halting man, untrue;
For each was true to duty, Since each obeyed the call When first he heard the summons, By yielding once for all.
Thus, reader, we have ventured, In person of the Lord, In running verse to argue The wisdom of his word.
While some are greatly troubled To see how any one Could rightly ask for wages For day's work partly done;
Yet others still have pleaded,— Deceived by Satan's art,— That all, though late in coming, Will share an equal part.
The former we've instructed By logic clear and strong, That God might pay the willing, For short work as for long.
We've also shown the latter That his mistake is great Who thinks in lands called Christian It ever pays to wait.
Thus close our pleasant labors, And thus our stanzas end, While arm in arm with reason Is found the sinner's Friend.

LABOR AND CAPITAL.

Bishop Stevens, addressing the Annual Convention of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, which met on Tuesday, May 7, referred to the threatening troubles between labor and capital, in the following language:—
“I now refer to an approaching evil which, like the cloud which the prophet’s servant saw in the west as he stood on Mount Carmel, though now no larger than a man’s hand, may soon, like that, burst in its fury upon us before we are fully conscious of its approach. I allude to the effort now being made, ostensibly in behalf of the laboring men, but really by communistic infidels, to bring about a conflict between labor and capital, the rich and the poor, the workman and the capitalist, which cannot but result in devastation and ruin. We experienced the first-fruits of this outcropping evil in the labor strikes and derangements of trade and travel which so startled us last summer. The power which then put itself forth was comparatively harmless, because not well organized and consolidated. That defect of last year is being remedied by the party leaders this year. We hear all around us, and especially at the West, of associations and gatherings, and drillings with manuals and arms, of this dangerous and inflammable element. We see it showing its ghastlyface in the efforts to make their new policy felt in the State and general government, and even the sacred seat of justice is being made to do the work of lawlessness and wrong. This evil looming up in our midst may, before we are aware of it, darken our sky and redden our fields. It can be met, not by argument, not by legislative action, but only by physical force to quell its outbreaks or overawe its movements; or, better still, by moral force, which shall bring to bear more clearly and closely on the hearts of all men that gospel of peace and love and salvation wrought out for us by the working-man’s divine friend, Jesus of Nazareth. The clergy should study the most pregnant question of social science, viz., How far, and by what means, can the gospel reach and leaven the masses? They should bring their thoughts to bear practically in the several parishes, and so rightly mold the minds of the parishioners and others, and thus create a sound and healthful sentiment, based on the only true social and moral science, the word of God.”

HISTORY AND TRINE IMMERSION.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.
(Continued.)

EUNOMIUS.

The advocates of three immersions claim that Eunomius, Bishop of Cyzicum, was the originator of single immersion. No evidence to this effect exists. They profess to prove it by Sozomen and Theodoret. But Sozomen does not say what they ascribe to him. Theodoret, in his history, gives a quite full account of Eunomius, of his being condemned as a friend of Arius, of his taking the bishopric, but not one word of that which Chrystal places to his credit. He has also recorded a Synodical letter of a council held in Constantinople, A. D. 381, in which are the following words:—
“We have rejected the hypothesis of Sabellius which confounds the three persons by denying their characteristics; neither do we receive the blasphemy of the Eunomians, of the Arians, or of the Spiritualists, who divide the substance, the nature, and the divinity of the Godhead, and who, denying the uncreated and consubstantial and co-eternal Trinity, speak of a Trinity which they represent as having been created, or as consisting of diverse natures.”
What these persons really believed will never be known. A brief notice of the treatment of heretics in those times may not be out of place. Bower says:—
“We shall find very few, if any at all, who, upon their teaching doctrines not approved by the fathers, have not been immediately transformed by them, out of their great zeal for the purity of the faith, into monsters of wickedness, though they themselves had perhaps proposed them before for patterns of every Christian virtue. It behoves us, therefore, to be very cautious in giving credit to what they say of those whom they style heretics.”—Hist. of Popes, vol. 1, p. 150.
On reading the history of those times we have often been impressed with the idea that ambition, rather than Christianity, prompted the dominant party, and that the zeal of the orthodox was not so strongly roused against the lives, or even the doctrines, of those called heretics, as against their persons. The spirit and temper of the times seems to be well expressed by Gibbon: “Religion was the pretense; but in the judgment of a contemporary saint, ambition was the genuine motive of episcopal warfare.”

WEIGHT OF HISTORICAL QUOTATIONS.

Those who favor trine immersion seem to think that their argument is strong if they can quote many authors who agree that trine immersion prevailed among the early Christians. We admit that it did, and ten thousand witnesses to that effect do not at all increase the truthfulness, nor yet the importance, of the fact. But, while we know that many scandalous errors held to this day by some, but by most repudiated, prevailed at the same time, and were introduced fully as early, the bare fact that the practice existed at an early age proves nothing at all in its favor. The question is not, Did it exist? but, By what authority did it exist? Satan existed at a very early age, and assumed to take his place among the sons of God; but neither his age nor such association gives any sanctity to his character. If it could be shown that the church was exceedingly pure in the age of its first recognition by “the fathers,” and that no other error had yet obtained a footing among the bishops and presbyters, that would be a presumption in its favor. Yet only a presumption, if it cannot plainly be found in the Scriptures. History makes no authority. It is for this reason we did not pursue the historical argument at the first, because it has no weight in our minds. We should not have deviated from the course first marked out to notice the historical argument at all, had it not been for the request of brethren whom we highly respect, and whose judgment we honor. We said, and we repeat it, We care nothing for what people have done; our sole inquiry is respecting what they ought to have done. History may inform us what they did, but we look to the Bible alone for duty,—for what we ought to do. But in addition to this statement, we must record our most solemn conviction that history—early history—is not at all in favor of trine immersion. We trace it directly to Africa for its first adherents, and find them acknowledging tradition as its basis.
There are three points which we must examine: the weight of the testimony of the Greek Church; the light in which baptism was held among the ancient Christians; and the reasons which were early urged in favor of trine immersion. And first

THE GREEK CHURCH.

Though it is a matter of minor importance, yet Eld. Moore is not strictly correct in dating the age of the Greek Church prior to its separation from the communion of Rome in the latter part of the ninth century. Prior to that they were considered one body, after that, the Greek and Roman churches became distinct. So far, however, as their practice is concerned, it is not, probably, affected by this circumstance. The Greek Church is often referred to as an example on the subject of baptism. It is said they ought best to understand their own original tongue; therefore it is safe to follow them in their definition of baptism. We have said, We safely follow them in the definition of the word; but we dare not follow them in their construction of the ordinance. For this we can show a reason. In giving to baptizein the definition, to immerse, they follow the usage of the language in which the New Testament was written. But, having established the identity of baptism and immersion, if they follow tradition and practice three immersions, which is in truth three baptisms, they then depart from the Greek text of the New Testament, which plainly says one baptism. And here truth compels us to leave them. Eld. Moore quotes Alexander de Stourdza as declaring that the Greek Church “administer baptism after the similitude of that of Christ,” and as they practice trine immersion he infers that it is after that similitude. We here repeat other words of this author as follows:—
“The church of the West has, then, departed from the example of Jesus Christ; she has obliterated the whole sublimity of the exterior sign; in short, she commits an abuse of words and of ideas, in practicing baptism by aspersion, this very term being, in itself, a derisive contradiction. The verb baptizo, immergo, has in fact but one sole acceptation. It signifies literally and always to plunge. Baptism and immersion, therefore, are identical; and to say, baptism by aspersion, is as if one should say, immersion by aspersion, or any other absurdity of this nature.”
This is surely a strong presentation of the case; but if it be true, which we all admit, that immersion and baptism are identical, it will take a wiser than Alex. de Stourdza to show that three immersions and three baptisms are not identical! And, inasmuch as baptism and immersion are equal, if three baptisms and three immersions are not equal, it is because three are not equal to three! There remains no dispute about the equality of baptism and immersion; the whole matter turns on the question, Is the number three equal to itself? Here is the absurdity of the trine immersion theory reduced to a mathematical demonstration. For it is an axiom that if equals are added to equals the products are equal. Then, as three are equal to three, if they be added respectively to immersion and to baptism, which are also equals, the products are equal. Hence three immersions equal three baptisms. We would be pleased to see somebody try to establish the converse of this proposition. But three baptisms are contrary to the Scriptures; therefore three immersions are contrary to the Scriptures.
Mr. Moore quotes Dr. Carson to confirm the view that the three immersions (properly designated three baptisms by Dr. Carson) have respect to the action, while one baptism (properly one immersion) has respect to the rite. Dr. Carson said:—
“The three immersions are, in the estimation of those who used them, only one rite.”
Dr. Carson was a very conscientious man. He sacrificed everything that a man of the highest culture and best worldly prospects could sacrifice to introduce immersion into the practice of the church. But he never uttered one word in favor of three immersions, as we would expect him to do if he believed that to be the sense of the Scripture injunction.
There is, moreover, an error in distinguishing between the action and the rite. A rite is necessarily an action; the sense of one determines the sense of the other. The distinction assumed, “in the estimation of those who used them,” as Dr. Carson said, we assert is unjust. Mr. Moore says of Alexander Campbell’s advocacy of one baptism:—
“The one baptism, or one immersion, seen by Campbell, was not the action by which the rite was performed, but the rite itself. . . . The three immersions seen through his historical glasses were the same thing, only under a different appearance.”
And it is only by the magic power of “historical glasses” that anybody can see three immersions. The real value of the sight we have tried to lay before our readers. We have noticed for some time that historical spectacles are a panacea with a certain class given to theological squinting. We consider it a device of empirics, injurious to the moral vision, sometimes resulting in total Bible obscuration.
Constantinople was the central city of the Greek Church, as Rome was and is of the Latin. The present head of the Greek Church, so-called, is the Czar of Russia. They were of one communion till the ninth century; but it was decided by Pope Gregory the Great that a diversity of practice in regard to baptism did not invalidate the ordinance. We have seen that the Greek Church do not act consistently with the New Testament in practicing three baptisms; have we any other reasons for distrusting their testimony and their example? We have.
1. They practice infant baptism, which is plainly a corruption of the ordinance. They profess to found this also directly on the teachings of Christ; affirming that baptism is the birth spoken of in John 3:5, which only can secure their entrance into the kingdom of God. Thus we see that we cannot safely trust to their example, nor to their claim that they derive it from the Scriptures.
2. They practice infant communion, which is also a corruption of the gospel. But they profess to draw this also from Christ’s own words in John 6:53, 54. They affirm that in the communion is the flesh and blood of Christ, which infants also must eat and drink, or lose eternal life. This, another perversion of Scripture, proves that they are not safe guides in faith and practice.
3. They acknowledge the authority of tradition, holding it equal to the Scriptures. It is well known that the authority of tradition was placed beyond question in the whole Catholic Church, long before the separation of the Greek and Latin parts. But we need not argue the point on this occasion, for Eld. Moore himself says: “Indeed, the scriptural and traditional authority are with the Greeks equally binding.” This decides the question as to the value of their practice as example for us. The Scriptures are our only rule. We can harmonize with others as far as they harmonize with this rule; when they leave it, or corrupt it, or exalt tradition to an equality with it, we cheerfully take another direction and separate from their company.
(To be Continued.)

HOW IS THIS?

The New York Graphic puts it thus: “How is this? Professor J. S. Newberry charges a dollar admission to a lecture in which he says he don't know where men came from. Colonel Ingersoll, on the other hand, charges seventy-five cents admission to a lecture in which he tells us he don't know where we are going to.” And this is the highest attainment of the unassisted reason. For the two great questions which the soul asks most anxiously, it confesses it has no answer.—Christian Statesman.

FALLING FROM HIGH PLACES.

High Christian society, both in New York and Brooklyn, has been shocked again and again during the past few years by the fall from rectitude of its eminent members. These cities have not been singular in their experiences. Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago have all furnished their instances of fall from high Christian and social positions into infamy. Men who have been trusted have betrayed their trusts. Men who have “made a good profession” have shamefully or shamelessly belied their profession. Whole families have gone down into financial ruin and social disgrace with these men. Some of the delinquents are serving out their terms in the state-prison, and some of their innocent victims and family friends are in lunatic asylums. The whole matter has been horrible—too horrible to dwell upon, or talk about. It has even been too solemn and suggestive to gossip over. Under the revelations of these great iniquities, carried on for years in secret, men have trembled for themselves and their friends. It has been feared that these were but the out-croppings of an underlying mass of infidelity to truth and honor. We have almost dreaded to look into the morning papers, lest some more shocking fall than all should be revealed.
Of course there has been a great deal of comment upon the subject—wise and otherwise. The scoffer at religion has had his fling. The conscious scamp has had his little crow over his long-bruited conclusion that men are all alike, and that all are scamps as far as they dare to be. But the good men and women, in the church and out of it, have taken the whole matter very sadly to heart; and they wonder what it means. Why is it, at this particular time, that there should fall upon the Christian church such disgrace in the fall of its members? Has Christianity no hold upon men? Does it give them no strength under temptation? Does it in no way put them beyond temptation? How is it that men can go on punctiliously in the performance of their outward Christian duties, while consciously guilty of offenses against the law which, if proved, would consign their persons to prison and their names to public execration?
There is a great deal that might be said upon the matter, but there are only two things which we care to notice. The first is that we have passed and are passing through an exceptional period in political, social, and financial history. Smooth times would have spared us most of the disasters which we so sadly lament. The civil war furnished great opportunities for making money rapidly, and the men who made it rapidly raised their style of living to a luxurious grade. So many made money swiftly that they had the power to revolutionize the general style of living. In this way, life became more expensive to everybody, and the most extraordinary exertions were made by all men to win a share in the general prosperity, and to display a share in their dresses, equipages, and homes. We did not hear very much about betrayals of trust while the prosperity was in progress; but when the times began to pinch, and men were trying to bridge over little gaps in their income, without showing to their families or their friends that they were in trouble, the mischief began. The first steps were undoubtedly very small, and were intended to be immediately retraced; but the pinch in the times did not relax, and the false steps never were retraced and never could be retraced. The following ones were the steps that a man makes when dragged at the tail of a hangman's cart—irresistible.
Now we are simply harvesting the crop. The mischief began long since, under the pressure of special and exceptional temptations. But ought not Christianity to have been equal to such an emergency as this? This is the question the church is asking of itself. This is the question the world is asking of the church, and this is the second point that we have thought worth considering in this article.
Now why does the world ask of the church such a question as this? Who taught the world its morality? Where did it acquire its nice notions of personal honor and honesty? Whose influence has planted in the public mind the sense of integrity and purity—the sense of the heinousness of infidelity to private and public trusts? Christianity has been the world's teacher, and it only asks the question which the church has taught it to ask. Why does the church feel through all its membership the deep disgrace of these untoward revelations, save for the reason that it is truly Christian, and is permeated and moved by the spirit which these crimes have violated?
If the church were trying to cover up these crimes and to shield these criminals; if she were not shocked and grieved to her center; if she were not sadly questioning herself as to the causes of these terrible backslidings, she might be flouted with them. As it is, no decent man will fail to give her his sympathy.
Feeling just this, and saying so much as this, we believe that we have the liberty to say a little more. We feel at least the liberty to ask a question or two. Is it not possible that in the pulpit teaching of the present day we make a little too much of salvation, and not quite enough of righteousness; a little too much of the tree, and not quite enough of the fruit; a little too much of a “saving faith,” and not quite enough of good works; a little too much of believing, and not quite enough of living; a little too much of dogma, and not quite enough of character? Certainly the pulpit has erred in this matter, and erred not a little. It is the weak place, not only in modern preaching, but in modern orthodox theology of all names; and if the church wishes to learn the lesson of her failures, she will find it here. A man whose principal motive is to get himself saved by compliance with certain hard conditions of repentance and service, is a pretty poor staff to lean upon in the emergency of a temptation which attacks his selfishness from another direction. Our revival preaching, unless supplemented by a long course of instruction in morality, is pretty poor stuff. It serves its temporary purpose well enough, perhaps; but if conversion is anything less than the beginning of a drill and training in righteousness, it amounts to very little.—Scribner.
Continue reading: PENNSYLVANIA SABBATARIANS