"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one immersion, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through and in you all."--EPH. iv: 4-6.
THE subject in hand is the union of the people of God. It is necessary to have a clear understanding at the start. It is not the union of "professors of religion," "professed Christians," "Christian sects," or "Christian denominations," that is to be considered, but simply the union of Christians, those who are truly the people of God. The union of others, before they are connected to God, is not in view nor desirable. They will do less harm divided than united. Two propositions will be discussed in this discourse and sustained:
I. God requires all Christians to unite in one body.
II. There is a common ground on which all the people of God can unite without any sacrifice of truth or conscience.
Those two points being well cleared up, the way is open for the union of all God's children, for them to be one, to dwell in peace and love. To the work in hand, then, let attention be directed.
I. God requires all Christians to unite in one body.
Something of immense value may be learned by careful attention to the practice of the most devoted and pious. Turn your attention, then, to this class for a few moments. There have been some in all ages who have read the Scriptures and worshiped in their families. What kind of prayers have been going up to heaven from these pious family circles for generations? Among many subjects of prayer, the union of the children of God has been one constant subject. The cry has been ascending to heaven from the pure in heart, the true and the holy, "O that the time may come when we shall all see eye to eye, and walk hand in hand." Will this supplication all be lost, or will it yet be answered? It will be answered as sure as the Lord lives. Turn your attention to another place of prayer. There is a meeting they call the "prayer-meeting." This is not a popular meeting. It usually averages from three up to twenty. At this meeting a few of the true and the holy, the devoted and pious, come together, frequently without any preacher to dispute about depravity, effectual calling, final perseverance, or any of the antiquated bones of contention that never had any substance to keep a saint from starving, and they engage in devout supplications. Here, again, the fervent petition wells up from a devout heart: "O that the time may come when all jars, discords, and divisions shall be done away forever, and when all the saints shall be united." These holy cries have not been ascending to heaven in vain for ages past. They are all treasured up in the mind of the most gracious and merciful Father in heaven. They will one day all be answered.
But turn your attention to the great "union prayer-meeting," in some city, where a thousand meet on a morning for prayer. A brother rises to speak, and all eyes are turned toward him. His whole countenance is lighted up. He commences: "I believe the millennium is coming; I never was so happy in all my life. Here we are from different churches, all on one floor, without regard to our different views or denominations." A hundred voices are heard at once, "Thank God for it." They all solemnly bow down, and the prayer goes up to heaven: "O that we may all speak the same thing; be of the same mind and the same judgment; be perfectly joined together, and that there may be no divisions among us." These petitions are not, and will not, be lost. They will all be answered.
"I wanted Scripture," says a man, "and not prayers; these prove nothing." Do not be mistaken. They contain the righteous sentiment of the souls of the pure and the holy. Please turn your attention to one more prayer. Just before the Lord suffered he poured forth his holy soul in that wonderful prayer, usually styled his intercessory--truly and properly "the Lord's prayer"--the prayer he prayed himself, and not the one he taught his disciples to pray. In the midst of his solemn and sublime supplications he says, "I pray not for these alone; but for them also who shall believe on me through their word. That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." John xvii: 20, 21. What is the sum of this prayer? 1. It is a prayer for all who shall believe through the words of the apostles. 2. The prayer is that they all may be one. 3. The manner of the oneness--to be one as he and the Father are one. 4. What is to be accomplished by the oneness or union--that the world may believe, or that the world may be converted.
Do you inquire how, or in what sense, he and his Father are one? They are one in mind, in the work of saving man, in the will of God to save men--one in the same Gospel, the same Church, ordinances, worship, and every thing. They work in perfect harmony, in the same mind and in the same judgment. There is not a jar nor a discord between them. They cooperate in the same work. This is the way in which the saints should be one--as Jesus and his Father are one in the same work, in the same mind, and the same judgment, without a jar or discord. The tendency of such union would be the conversion of the world, for he adds, "That the world may believe that thou hast sent me." Can any one having the Spirit of Christ fail to pray for such union? If we pray for it, can we fail to labor for it? Where the love of partyism prevails, they not only do not pray for union, but teach the people that it is a wise providence of God that we have so many churches, and thank God for them, as extended means of grace.
Before the founding of the Church, and speaking of it prospectively--John x: 16--the Lord said: "There shall be one fold and one Shepherd." The "one fold," or one flock, spoken of here is the Church or kingdom. When he uttered this he did not see any wise providence of God in having many folds and many shepherds, but authoritatively declared "There shall be one fold and one Shepherd." Again--1 Cor. x: 17--Paul says: "For we being many are one bread," or one loaf, "and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread," or one loaf. Again--1 Cor. xii: 12--he says: "For as the body is one, and has many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ." In the next verse he says: "By one Spirit are we all immersed into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, bond or free; and have all been made to drink into one Spirit." There is, then, but one body or Church, or, which is the same, but one kingdom of Christ. Hence you read of the one fold, the house of God, the family of God, the building of God, the temple of God, God's husbandry, etc.; and while these are all figurative expressions, the same idea of unity is all the time maintained in all of them.
In the first chapter of the first letter to the Corinthians, the apostle alludes to divisions partially formed in the Church, and the passage is so instructive that it must not be passed by with a single remark. Some apologize for the divisions now existing on the ground that they are not about vital or fundamental matters--that they are about unimportant and non-essential matters. On that account the divisions are not of much consequence, and excusable. But what were the divisions, coming into existence and rapidly culminating at the time the apostle wrote this letter, about? Were they about fundamental matters? Certainly not, but their preferences for their preachers. Some said, "I am of Paul;" others, "I am of Apollos;" or, to modernize it, "I am a Paulite; I am an Apollosite," etc. There was no fundamental question at issue among them. The questions in dispute were quite non-essential; simply about their preferences for their most public and influential men. Some were for one, and some for another. 1 Cor. iii: 4, he says, "While one says, I am of Paul: and another, I am of Apollos, are you not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?" 1 Cor. iv: 6, he says: "And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself, and to Apollos for your sakes." This prudence he exercised to avoid the mention of names more immediately involved. Why did he not excuse the matter on the ground that the divisions were about unimportant matters--merely about their preferences for their preachers? Instead of this being an excuse, it was the more shame for them that they should be divided about such an unimportant matter as the preferences for their public men.
The next item of importance appearing in the case is that division among Christians is an evidence of carnality. 1 Cor. iii: 3, he says, "For you are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are you not carnal, and walk as men?" Jude says, "These be they who separate themselves, sensual, not having the Spirit." Jude 19. Carnal is the opposite of spiritual. "Sensual" is the same as carnal, or fleshly, and Jude explains more fully by adding "not having the Spirit." People who have divisions are carnal, sensual, not having the Spirit.
Another important item of instruction derived from this passage is that it is not allowable to assume a human religious name, or to call a body of Christians after a man, or to take the name of a man as a religious designation. If it were right to take the name of any man as a religious designation, it would certainly be right to take the name of such a man as Paul, Peter, or Apollos. Yet Paul makes a direct argument against this. Hear him: "For it has been declared to me of you, my brethren, by those of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ." 1 Cor. i: 11, 12. This is the state of case as he finds it. In order to show them how absurd and ridiculous their position was, he puts the question, "Is Christ divided?" Their position implied that Christ was divided. This question he put to the whole of them, knowing that there could be but one answer. The Lord is one--a unit. Then, with propriety, he turns to those who said they were of Paul, or that they were Paulites, and inquired, "Was Paul crucified for you?" If you are to be Paulites, Paul should have been crucified for you, but as Paul was not crucified for you, there was no ground for saying you are of Paul. This reasoning he knew sensible people would apply to all other names as well as the name of Paul. But he proceeded to press them still more tightly: "Were you immersed into the name of Paul?" He knew that they all would say certainly we were not immersed into the name of Paul, but "into Christ." He proceeds further to argue that he gave them no ground for saying they were of Paul, or Paulites, by adding: "I thank God that I immersed none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I immersed into my own name. And I immersed also the house of Stephanas; besides, I do not know whether I immersed any others." 1 Cor. i: 13-16. This language needs a little careful attention in this age of perversion. He does not say, as many quote, that he thanked God that he never immersed many, nor even that he had not immersed many of the Christians, but, speaking to those who said they were of Paul, "I thank God that I immersed none of you"--you who say you are of Paul, only the few specified. Why does he thank God for this? Because he did not think immersion of much consequence? No; that is not his reason. What, then? He adds, "Lest any should say I had immersed into my own name." He might have added, For here are some saying I am of Paul, and I am thankful that I never gave them any ground for saying "I am of Paul," not even so much as to have immersed them, excepting a few. From this reasoning the following, is clear:
1. That as Christ was crucified for them, they should be called after him.
2. As they were not immersed into the name of Paul, but into Christ, they should be called after Christ, and not after Paul, or any other man.
3. That it is schismatical and sinful to have any human leader or name in the kingdom of God.
4. That as Christ was crucified for them, and they had been immersed into Christ, into one body and one name, they should remain in union in the one body and the name of the Lord.
But now for the remedy where Christians are divided. What did he entreat or beseech these divided Christians to do? Does he make some feeble excuse for them that they can not see alike; that they differ in their personal appearance; that there are varieties in all nature, and tell them that it is a wise providence of God that they are divided, etc. Not a word of it. What, then? Hear his holy entreaty: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment." Where this divine authority prevails, there is an end to division among Christians. Where it does not prevail, rebellion against God prevails.
But now turn to the text read at the outset, Eph. iv: 1-6: "I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation wherewith you are called, with all lowliness and long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." The apostle alludes to his being the prisoner of the Lord to touch their hearts. He, no doubt, remembered the solemn and affectionate parting when he in person separated from them, and when they "sorrowed most of all for the words which he spoke, that they should see his face no more." Having alluded to his being "the prisoner of the Lord," he entreats them to endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. He then proceeds to give seven reasons why they should endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit, or, which is the same, maintain union. These reasons are as follows:
1. "There is one body," or but one body. The argument is this: Inasmuch as there is but one body of Christ, or one Church, we should endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit.
2. There is "one Spirit," or but one Spirit to dwell in the one body; and as there is but one Holy Spirit to dwell in the one body, or Church, we should endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit, or maintain union in the body.
3. There is "one hope," or but one hope for the whole family both in heaven and on earth. As we all have but the one hope, we should endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit--maintain union among all who have this one hope in the one body.
4. There is "one Lord," or but one Lord; the head of the one body, and, inasmuch as there is but one Lord, the head of the one body, we should keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
5. There is "one faith," or but one faith from God for the one body; and as there is but one faith for the one body, we should all endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit, or strive to maintain union among all God's children.
6. There is "one immersion," or but one immersion, the initiatory rite for the one body. It is not one sprinkle, one sprinkling, one pour, or one pouring; nor three immersions into three names, but "one immersion" into one name, one body, or Church; and, as there is but one immersion into one body, we should endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit.
7. There is "one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." This is the grand culmination of all his reasons for keeping the unity of the Spirit. As there is one God, or but one God and Father of all, above all, and through all, and in you all, you should endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit, or maintain union among the children of God, in the one body. Such is the apostle's argument in detail. It may all be summed up in one sentence. as follows: As there is but one body or Church; but one Spirit to dwell in that one body; but one hope set before that one body; but one Lord, the head of that one body; but one faith in that one body; but one immersion, the initiatory rite of that one body; and but one God and Father of all, above all, through all, and in you all, the author of it all, we should endeavor to maintain the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace, in that one body.
So far, then, as Scripture authority can settle any thing, these scriptures and reasonings show that God requires all Christians to unite. The way is now clear for the second head introduced at the commencement.
II. There is a common ground on which all the people of God can unite without any sacrifice of truth or conscience.
Negative preaching generally does not amount to much, but it may be of some importance to show up some ground on which union is not possible. This can be done by an illustration. Suppose, then, you were in a vast convention of fifty of the religious parties, all largely represented by preachers and private members. Suppose, further, that they have all agreed that the Lord requires the union of Christians. They are now in convention, searching for ground on which they can unite. Archbishop Purcell proceeds to address the convention as follows:
"I am rejoiced that you have all agreed that God requires union among all the people of God. We in Holy Mother Church have held this all the time; but I never saw my way clear till now to propose union. But as you have now all agreed that union is right, I am encouraged to propose a plan of union. Here I have in my hand the oldest creed in the world. Our Church is the oldest and the largest church. Look at our tall spires and massive cathedrals in all parts of the world. Look at our extended schools and colleges. See, too, what an extended ministry. Here is the Church and creed for union. Here is the true union ground where we stand. Now, all you who are willing to unite on one creed and in our church, hold up your hand." He stands and looks over the convention in immense suspense and astonishment, seeing but one hand--the Romanist hand--high up, while there are forty-nine down. He takes his seat and hangs down his head in discouragement.
A bishop in the Episcopalian Church rises next and says: "I did not think we could ever agree to unite in the Roman Catholic Church. There has been too much persecution in that body for us Protestants. We never could unite there. But I have risen to propose union in our church and on the Prayer-Book. Our church is older than many others, and is now considered an established thing. The Prayer-Book is older than the most of your creeds, is entirely orthodox, and, I believe, the best book in the world except the Bible. We have a learned ministry, an elegant literature, and the most elegant church edifices in the land. Now, I trust, you will all see that we occupy the true ground of union, and that you will all unite with us in our church, and on our creed. All you who are in favor of uniting on our ground, will please hold up the hand." He stands in anxiety, looking over the house and sees one hand--the Episcopalian--high up, but forty-nine down. "Is it possible that there is but one out of forty-nine for our church?" he exclaims, and takes his seat.
Next comes Dr. N. L. Rice, of the Presbyterian Church, with the Confession of Faith in his hand, exclaiming; "I knew that you could never unite in the Roman Catholic Church. I have no doubt you have read my lectures on Romanism, delivered in Bardstown, Kentucky, many years ago, in which I showed up the dangers of that church. As to my friend, the Episcopalian bishop, he and myself are on good terms, but I did not think you could unite with him on his Prayer-Book. But here I hold in my hand the best book in the world except the Bible; this blessed little book, the Confession of Faith. Here is the book on which we can unite. Here each point of our doctrine is stated clearly and concisely, and below it is the scripture that proves it. Then look at our wise church polity, with our presbyteries, synods, and general assemblies. Then look at our learned ministry, our extended literature, our elegant church edifices, colleges, and theological schools. Here is the ground for union. All who are for union on our ground, in our church and on our creed, will please hold up the hand." With anxious suspense, he looks over the house and sees one hand--the Presbyterian hand--high up, but forty-nine hands down. Forty-nine against the Presbyterian ground of union for one for it. There is no possibility of union on that ground.
He is not more than seated till up comes a Methodist bishop, Discipline in hand, who proceeds to speak as follows: "I know that you could never unite in that old persecuting church--the Romish--and I also knew that you would never agree to unite in the Episcopalian Church. We Methodists have read how Episcopalians persecuted Father Wesley for forming his little praying societies, meeting innocently in them, and praying for more personal holiness and a deeper work of grace. Nor could we Methodists ever think of uniting on the Presbyterian Confession, containing what Father Wesley called 'the horrible decree of election and predestination,' and that other doctrine, that church officers have power to open and shut the kingdom of God, to remit and retain sins, as taught under the heads 'Decrees,' and 'Church Censures.' But now, here is our most excellent book of Discipline, with its twenty-five articles, its general rules, its arrangement for class, its mighty ministry, circuit-riders, presiding elders, and bishops; its great book-concern, with all its massive publications, spacious church edifices, schools, colleges, and theological schools. I do believe our church will take the world. Now here is our ground of union. All who are in favor of uniting with us on our ground, in our church and on the Discipline, will please hold up the hand." He stands in awful suspense and looks, and, to his profound astonishment, there is but one hand up--the Methodist hand--and forty-nine hands down. Forty- nine against and one for Methodism! He takes his seat with the others. Do not say this is only a piece of imagination. You can not deny that this is the way they would vote, if they were here and acting on the subject.
Some man shouts from the audience, "Try the Campbellite church, and see if they will fare any better." That is a puzzling matter. It is said they will not write out their doctrine, and that no man knows what they believe. It must not, therefore, be expected that a statement of the doctrine, or the ground, be presented. The least that can be done for the case is promised. Suppose, then, there is a man of that order here and he takes the stand and says, "I have found the true ground of union, the catholicon, the grand panacea for all your troubles." He puts in his plea, states his doctrine, and square out calls it "Campbellism," and, crying aloud, calls for all who are for uniting with him on his ground to hold up their hand. In profound amazement and astonishment, he sees not one hand up. Nobody is for it. It is hoped, therefore, that it will not come in the way any more.
But what is to be done? No ground of union is developed. But far back a little man is seen, of quick step and venerable appearance, advancing toward the stand. To the astonishment of all it is "Paul the aged." He takes the Bible in hand and says, "I see a passage in this book that I wrote eighteen hundred years ago, under the inspiration of the Spirit of God. It reads as follows: 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works.' 2 Tim. iii: 16, 17. I understand that you all admit that the things I wrote, except where I explained that it was my own advice, were from the Lord. As these Scriptures (holding the Bible) are from God, and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works, I propose that you all agree to unite on those Scriptures, with the determination that you will receive heartily and believe every thing in them and practice as they teach in all things. This you can do without any sacrifice of truth or conscience, for you all admit that you believe all that is contained in these Scriptures and that you believe nothing in religion that is not contained in them. Now, I propose that you all believe on Christ, unite on these Scriptures and stand where we, the apostles and the first Christians all stood. All who are in favor of uniting on this ground, will please hold up the hand." Forty-nine can go for this, without any sacrifice of truth or conscience, and only one can not. The Romanists can not, without rejecting their unwritten traditions. Here is the only possible union ground for the people of God. This ground is possible, and there is not a man living who can offer a reasonable objection to it.
Some man explains as follows: "Our creed is the same as Scripture. We took it all from the Bible." Then the way is clear for you to unite on the Bible, for if you took all your creed out of the Bible, you will find it all in the Bible, and you will lose nothing of truth or conscience.
Some other man explains a little different from the one just alluded to. He says, "Our creed was not, word for word, taken from the Bible, but it is like the Bible--the same in substance." If that is so, your way is clear for uniting on the Bible, for if your "creed is like the Bible--the same in substance," the Bible will answer the purpose as well as your creed. The Bible will certainly do as well as a creed like the Bible. You can unite on the Bible without any sacrifice of truth or conscience.
The matter rests here: If a creed contains than the Bible, it contains too much, and whatever it contains more than the Bible is objectionable, and it is to be rejected because it contains too much. If a creed contains less than the Bible, it contains too little, and whatever it contains less than the Bible, is demanded, and the creed is rejected because it contains too little. If a creed differs from the Bible, it is wrong where it differs from the Bible, and is to be rejected because it differs from the Bible. If a creed is like the Bible, it is useless, for, in that case, the Bible will certainly do as well as a creed like the Bible. There is no other ground that a man can take. If he wants a creed, it must be because it contains more than the Bible, because it contains less than the Bible, because it differs from the Bible, or because it is like the Bible. If it contains more than the Bible, whatever it contains more is an addition to the Bible. We must not add to the Word of God. If it contains less than the Bible, it takes from the Bible. This incurs the displeasure of the Lord. "If any man shall take away from the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life." If it differs from the Bible, all know it is wrong where it differs from the Bible, for the Bible is right. If it is like the Bible, it is useless, for we have the Bible.
"What, then, is to be done with all the creeds?" says a man. Do with the whole of them as some of the preachers have done with the Bible--pronounce them "a dead letter." There can be no general union till they are abolished, made null and void, entirely abrogated. As long as a single one of them is in force anywhere, schism will exist. They are subversive of the peace, harmony, cooperation, and fellowship of the people of God in the way of every good work, and subversive of the divine authority. Their influence must be entirely swept away, and the supreme authority of the Holy Scriptures restored, not in word, but in practice, before the restoration of union among the children of God. They are not the unwritten traditions of Rome, but the written traditions of Protestants, and it is as indispensable to the success of the cause of Christ, and the peace and harmony of the children of God, that their power be destroyed as it was that the power of the unwritten traditions of the Church of Rome should have been destroyed in the time of Luther.
Why, for illustration, are not the Methodists and Presbyterians united? You reply, "They do not believe alike." They both believe the Bible. Wherein, then, do they not believe alike? The Methodist Discipline is an addition to the Bible, and the Presbyterians do not believe it. The Presbyterian Confession of Faith is an addition to the Word of God, and the Methodists do not believe it. They are not divided about the Bible, for, as stated before, they both believe the Bible. They are agreed about the Bible--that it is all true. They disagree about their creeds. Neither party believes the other party's creed. Their difference is not about the Bible nor Christianity. They all believe the Bible and Christianity; but their difference is about their creeds. Methodism and Presbyterianism--things not in the Bible.
But now some reasons, in regular order, must be produced for proposing union on the Bible alone:
1. The Church had no creed but the Bible, or the law of God as found in the Bible, during the first three centuries. That it had no creed but the law of God during the life-time of the apostles, when it had all the grand and sublime sanctions of supernatural power, is equal to divine authority for no creed but the law of God. That its prosperity when it had no creed but the Bible was greater than it has ever been under any creed, is also an argument against all human creeds. That it never had a general division during the period when it had no law but the law of God, is a transcendent argument against all human laws in religion.
2. Wesley said, "Would to God that all party names were forgot, and that we, as humble, loving brethren, might sit down together at the Master's feet, read his Holy Word, imbibe his Spirit, and transcribe his life in our own." The Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Methodist creeds contain the following: "The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, or may not be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith or thought requisite to salvation." Wesley says in the General Rules for his Societies, and speaking of them, "All of which we are taught of God to observe, even in his written word, which is the sufficient and the only infallible rule both of our faith and practice." Chillingworth says, "The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants." The time is now come not only to announce these things as eulogies on the Bible, but to carry them out in practice. These things are all backed up by Paul in the Scripture before quoted. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to every good work." This is an end to the controversy with reasonable people. You can have no more than the man of God perfected and thoroughly furnished for all good works.
3. The Bible-alone ground is not now a mere matter of theory. The thing has been submitted to practice, and, before the heavens and the earth, there is now actual demonstration. When the movement was first made, the opposers used to tell its friends that in a few years there would be nothing of it; that it would soon be numbered among the things that were; that the novelty of the movement was the chief attraction; that many persons are always seeking something new. But in many communities in the United States, the movement has been before the world fifty years. The cause has had the trial of time. The result is, that in such communities it is more firmly established than anywhere else. In the section of country where Barton W. Stone first broke the Presbyterian ranks, the cause is as firmly established as anywhere else, and the general sentiment of the people is now on the side of the Bible cause. But Presbyterianism is on the decline there, and has been ever since. At the time the movement was fully inaugurated in Kentucky, the Presbyterians numbered some thirty thousand in that State. They have dwindled down till they now number less than ten thousand, while the Disciples of the Lord have increased till they number probably one hundred thousand. In all the means and resources for operating on the world and moving society, the Christians in that State now stand in advance of all others. This is true of other sections of country, and large sections too. It is true, too, of those sections where the intelligence, the cultivation, and elevation of the country are of the first order.
4. It was argued, at an early period in the movement for union on the Bible, that preachers and private members of such different doctrines and views as exist among the people of this and other countries, were better off separated than they would be united--that such discordant elements could not be brought together and harmonized. But this reasoning was all short-sighted and fallacious. It proceeded on the assumption that they were to remain partisans, to love partyism, cherish party spirit and feeling. They did not understand that the very first thing was to cure a man of that--to destroy all that party feeling in his soul, and plant, in its stead, the love of Christ, of union, harmony, and fellowship. They have lived long enough now, in many instances, to see actual demonstration. They now see the preachers from different orders coming, uniting, and harmoniously working together. They see the private members coming from all parties and uniting on the Bible, falling in with the utmost harmony. Thousands who have thus been gathered are now on every Lord's day seated together at the Lord's table and commemorating the Lord's death as if they had always been one. Many of these have thus traveled the road together till they have grown old and are waiting for their departure. They have demonstrated the possibility of union on the Bible by an actual union, not for an hour, a day, a week, or a year, but for ever.
"We are all getting on very well if you would let us alone," says a man. Suppose you look over the ground once in your life and see how well you are getting on. In the country towns and villages, numbering from one to ten thousand inhabitants, they average from five to ten churches, or that many parties. They then need from five to ten meeting-houses. If they were united they would only need from one to two meeting-houses. Here, then, at the outset, four-fifths of the money spent in building meeting-houses is wasted, or worse than wasted--given to maintain these divisions. This is wasting the Lord's money for which, as his stewards, we shall give an account. But this is only the beginning. Instead of from one to two preachers in each of these towns, which would be all they would need if they were all united, they now need from five to ten. Here four-fifths of the money given to sustain preachers is thrown away, or worse, given to sustain partyism. Then four-fifths of all the expense of furniture, fuel, lights, etc., in running these establishments, is also wasted in maintaining these divisions. Then, when you have all this expense, instead of these parties laboring to turn sinners to the Lord, the general effort all round is to convert people to our party. Sensible men of the world listen to their general Babel, their confusion of tongues, crying "Lo! here, and lo! there," and turn away in disgust into unbelief. The Lord saw all this when he prayed that they might be one, that the world might believe.
But you say "we are all getting along well enough if we were let alone." But please look again. A preacher was once invited to a house. Entering the apartment, the gentleman of the house introduced the preacher to his wife. As the preacher took the lady by the hand, he inquired of the gentleman, "Is your good wife a member of any church?" He replied that she was, naming the church, and at the same time pointing in the direction of the meeting-house. "And," continued the preacher, "are you a member of church?" He replied that he was, naming the church, and pointing toward the meeting-house, but in an opposite direction from the house where his wife attended. He was then introduced to two daughters, and, on inquiry, learned that they belonged to another church. On being introduced to two sons, and, inquiring, he learned that one of them belonged to still a different church from any of the others, and that the other one did not believe any of it, nor the Bible. Look at this family when the Lord's day comes. The husband starts in one direction, the wife in another, the daughters in a third direction, and one son in a fourth direction, and the other son goes to no church, but reads Tom Paine's infidel book, falsely styled the "Age of Reason." Do you call this "getting along well enough?" But the preacher inquired of this man, "How do you get along in this condition of things?" Drawing a long breath he replied, "Tolerably well." Said the preacher, "How?" "Well," said the gentleman, "I belonged to my church when we married, and when my wife went over here and joined her church, it hurt my feelings very much, and I determined to talk to her, but on attempting to do so, I soon found that we would hurt each other's feelings, and we agreed to disagree and say no more about it." He also gave a similar history about his daughters and his son. The preacher then said to him, "I presume you never commune with your own wife." He replied, "I never did." The preacher continued, "You do not then fellowship your own wife?" This was hard, but, clearing up his voice, he answered faintly, "No, sir." Turning to the wife the preacher said, "And you, madam, do not fellowship your own husband?" She said she did not. The preacher continued to the husband, "Do you not think your wife is a Christian?" "I do," said he, seeming to find much relief in saying it. "And do you not, madam, believe your husband is a Christian?" "I certainly do," said she. "Then," pressingly inquired the preacher, "why did you never commune together?" The husband replied, "It is contrary to the rules of our church." Who made these "rules of our church?" inquired the preacher. "Our great and good men," was the reply. "Great and good men," said the preacher, "made rules of our church forbidding the Christian husband and Christian wife to commune together! God joined together this Christian husband and Christian wife, and said, 'Let not man put them asunder,' but these 'rules of our church,' made by uninspired men, have come in and put them asunder in the kingdom of God, where they should be more completely one than anywhere else! From this day forward I will put forth every power of my soul and body to abolish all these uninspired rules, and blot them out forever." On what ground does this family propose to get along agreeably? Simply on the ground of keeping their lips sealed and saying nothing about religion. Never was the great enemy of God and man better pleased than when he succeeded in closing the lips of this whole family and excluding all talk about the name of Jesus Christ and the kingdom of God.
"How are we to obviate the difficulty?" some one inquires. As in the following case: A preacher was invited to a house where the husband belonged to one church and the wife to another. Being seated in the parlor, the husband and wife near by? the preacher was trying to say a few words to interest a sweet little daughter of theirs of six or seven years. It came into his mind that he might turn it to some practical account, and he inquired of the child, "When you grow up to be a woman, do you intend to join your mother's church?" The child looked toward her father with deep concern, but made no reply. He then inquired, "Do you intend to join your father's church?" The child showed more feeling, but made no answer, looking toward her mother. He then pressed in another form: "Which church do you intend to join, your father's or your mother's?" The child stood with its eyes filled with tears, but made no answer. The preacher then appealed to the father and mother to tell why the child did not answer, but they made no reply. The reason it did not answer was obvious. If it joined its mother's church, it had to leave its father. If it joined its father's church, it had to leave its mother. It would not entertain the idea of doing either. The preacher then made his appeal to the father and mother: "Do you intend to keep this stumbling-block in the way of your child, and thus keep it out of the Church, or will you not unite on the Bible and remove it out of the way?" In an evening or two after, when an invitation was given, the husband walked into the partition in the pews and beckoned to the wife to come to him. She instantly came, and he extended his hand and said, "I have come to offer you my hand to unite on the Bible." She did not wait more than a moment till she took his hand and said, "The Lord helping me, I will go with you." They immediately came forward and united on the Bible. The daughter can now go with both father and mother, and, above all, according to the will of God. Here is the ground on which all Christians can unite without any sacrifice of truth or conscience. There is not a reason in the world why every husband and wife, parent and child, brother and sister, may not come on the same ground.
"You are too exclusive, talking about the Bible as if nobody else had a right to it." That is not the style of Christians. The Bible is for you as much as for any body, and the argument is to induce you to adopt it, and avail yourself of all the blessings and advantages contained in it. They are for you, and you should not deprive yourself of that which the Lord intended for you and cut yourselves off from it. When you unite on the Bible, that does not deprive any other man from uniting on it. This is the highest ground a man can take. No man can go above it, nor beyond it. To go back to the apostles and first Christians, receive the Gospel, the whole Gospel, and nothing but the Gospel; believe it with all the heart, follow its holy teaching faithfully and honestly in all things, is the highest ground man can take, the best that can be done. The effort to do this is simply an effort to return to the Lord, take him as the great leader in all things, learn of him, and make the best effort in the power of honest men and women to do his will in all things. Ask them what they are, and they reply, Christians, disciples of Christ. To what church do you belong? The Church of God, or body of Christ. What creed have you? The law of God. Who is the founder of your church? The Lord is the founder of his Church, of which all Christians are members. Who is your leader? The Lord from heaven.
There is no getting above this ground. If a man leaves it, he leaves God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the saints, the Bible, the Church of God, and leaves off being a Christian. He becomes an apostate.
The precise thing for the people of God to do is to keep our Lord before the people, his Gospel and teaching, his cause and kingdom, and nothing else. The issue is not about men, nor about the teaching of men, but about Christ, his Gospel and teaching. Those who are for Christ, his Gospel and teaching, his cause and kingdom, and nothing else, are to stand out and make themselves known. They are on the one side, and form the one army. Those for any thing else, no matter what, with all those who are indifferent, or for nothing, are on the other side, in one awful, confused, and motley group, under the one leader, "that old serpent, the devil and Satan," arrayed against the "right way of the Lord." On their side there is no scruple about means and appliances. They are for any thing that will militate against the government of God, the union of saints, and the salvation of man. The cause of the army of the Lord, the redeemed hosts of the true Israel of God, is the cause of righteousness, and no means but righteous means can be employed. The work the Lord has now committed to the hands of his people is a great work. The responsibility is on them. They must see to it that their work is done, and well done.
Let every saint be true to the Lord and his cause, and ultimately receive the crown of righteousness that fades not away. O, that they all may be one! that the world may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God!
