Earlier text: IMMERSION—TRINE OR SINGLE?REVIVAL AND DOCTRINAL PREACHING.
I submit the following from the Christian Advocate as worthy the attention of the readers of the REVIEW, on account of the position therein taken on the law and gospel. J. H. Rogers. We are, and for a considerable time past have been, almost utterly at a loss to account satisfactorily for a wide-prevailing and apparently constantly increasing opposition to what is usually known as doctrinal preaching. In many cases the opposition is open and pronounced. In other cases it is rather covert, and may be regarded as more of a secret indisposition to preach or to hear doctrinal sermons than a pronounced antagonism to them. It has come to be a rare thing that one hears a plain, straight-forward, outright repetition of those solemn, unmistakable denunciations which the Bible contains against sin and its consequences, and of sinners and their doom. There is seemingly a manifested disposition either to ignore these things entirely, or so to smooth them over as that they may not offend the delicate sensibilities of worldly-minded people and formalistic professors of religion. There are truths contained in the Bible which, in the very necessities of the case, must be unpleasant to the carnal mind, and disagreeable to our unrenewed natures. To repeat and enforce these truths is to excite painful emotions in the minds of the hearers, especially of the unconverted; and there is something in human nature which instinctively shrinks from the task of exciting, as well as from the pain of experiencing, such emotions. Following these impulsions, both preachers and people may sometimes unconsciously glide to the opposite extreme, and thus fail to declare or to receive the whole counsel of God. Tracing the history of the church as closely as we can from apostolic days on down to the present, it is distinctly and clearly noticeable that most or all of the great revivals which characterize that history have followed and been directly connected with the practice of the most rigid, clear, and forcible doctrinal preaching the world has ever heard. It was so in the age of Luther and his contemporaries. It was so in the time of Wesley and his co-laborers, as is well known to every one acquainted with the history of those times. It was so in the time of Dwight and Edwards in the great revival which pervaded the American colonies about the middle of the last century. In each and all of these cases, the revivals were emphatically “doctrinal” revivals. All great reformations have been produced by the same kind of preaching. That was, humanly speaking, the foundation on which they rested. And now we wish to call the attention of the readers of this paper to two or three points which may be regarded as nearly axiomatic, and in reference to them offer a few suggestions. A genuine revival of religion, like every other great reformation, must rest on a foundation of truth; hence, in our judgment, the popular notion as to the best method of conducting a revival is superficial and erroneous. That notion is, or, at least, the practice, is, to let doctrine alone, keep it in the background, nor preach it, nor sing it, nor pray it. The aim seems to be to attract attention, to arouse feeling and get the people committed, with or without due consideration. Such labor may and will have its fruits, but those fruits will be like the morning flowers and the early dew, or like the summer fruit of the prophet, soon to wither and pass away. It is a dangerous, though widely-prevalent supposition, that it is arousing and not teaching, which the people now most need. They need both. But the foundation of all healthful arousing or excitation must consist of sound, scriptural truth. This truth must be taught, line upon line, and precept upon precept, and reiterated until clearly comprehended, fully received, and incorporated into the minds of the people. No great reformation in science, philosophy, in morals, or in religion, has ever been accomplished without such teaching. And what in this respect is true in the general, is equally true in the particular. Every individual conversion of man, if it be genuine and reliable, must be a conversion by the influence of truth. Truth must be recognized as the reason why, and the foundation of such a change; hence the wondrous results of doctrinal teaching as alluded to above. The whole history of Methodism, until within a few years past, is a history of doctrinal, controversial preaching—preaching in which the truths of God’s written word were placed in antagonism to all erroneous doctrines, and by rigid analysis, clear exposition and logical sequence, were made to controvert, refute, and overcome all that opposed. Under this preaching, convictions for sin were deep, poignant, and powerful—heart-searching, heart-rending, heart-breaking. With a deep and clear sense of its guilt, its wretchedness and utter helplessness, the heart fled to Christ as the only helper of the otherwise helpless, the only Saviour of the lost, threw itself unreservedly upon his mercy and merits, trusted in him and in him alone, and conversions were thorough, clear, satisfactory, and full of joy. Then the gospel was presented in its totality. The law and the gospel were presented in their proper relations the one to the other; the one pointing to sin and its consequences, the other to the atonement and its remedies for sin. Looking at the history of the past in connection with the state of things now existing in this country, we are profoundly impressed with the conviction that the great need of the present day is a more clear, close, logical, and thorough doctrinal preaching. Now let us look at it. How was it that the apostle knew sin? By the law. How are we to know sin but by the same means? Take, then, a company of people, intelligent or otherwise, and let them by the use of apostolic means be brought to a knowledge of sin, and what next? Of course they will most desire to learn of the remedies for sin. Here come in the doctrines of the atonement. How are the benefits of this atonement to be obtained? is naturally the next question; and then come up the doctrines of repentance, faith; and they come up as the only doctrines which will meet the exigencies of the case, and come up, too, to the very people by whom, and at the very time when, their need is most keenly felt, and will be most anxiously listened to. Suppose, then, these doctrines are received and the people converted; then what? They are babes in Christ, and must be fed, not with oratorical flourishes, circumlocutory sentences, stupid periods, nor with ad captandum appeals, but with the pure word of God. Here, again, is doctrinal preaching. And from the beginning to the end of Christian life and Christian experience, doctrinal teaching is the proper, and only proper, pabulum. It is the man who closely studies the Bible, who is continually learning more and more of the Bible, and is continually bringing things new and old out of the treasury of that word; he, and not the mere sensationalist, it is, who edifies, strengthens, and builds up the church of God. He lays his foundations deep and wide on the pillars of immutable truth, and his work abides. He and his people feel, because they first know. Truth has been received by the intellect, and the sentiment has warmed it into life, and the feeling abides because the knowledge remains. They have joy in the Holy Ghost; nor is it a joy in mere fact and histories. It is not the happiness of momentary surprise, nor that arising from the gratification of mere temporary desires; nor yet is it a flutter that has no meaning, nor a throb that has no moral history behind it. Below it lie the great facts of spiritual experience, the fact of pardon, the fact of regeneration, the fact of adoption and sonship; and these facts, like solid masonry, underlie the temple whose pinnacle flashes with joy in the Holy Ghost. FAITH AND ITS FRUITS.
By C. A. Osgood
Faith is more precious than gold. It brings to its possessor rich blessings—all the soul needs. He that diligently seeks God by faith gains a glorious reward. The children of God live by faith. They walk by faith, and so walk with God. The fruits of faith appeared in the lives and actions of saints who lived in ancient times. Noah had this living, active faith. He believed that what God said, was true. What God told him about the future, he expected would take place. He lived in an age of great wickedness. God revealed to him his purpose to drown the world. He commanded him to build an ark for the saving of his house. Had he been like many now-a-days, he would have thought like this:— I am a child of God. I have walked with God many years. I feel that I am accepted of him. This old-fashioned religion is good enough for me. I will go on preaching and praying as I have done. I need no new truth. As to building this ark, I cannot think of it. The cost will be very great. It will exhaust my entire fortune. I cannot afford the time. I cannot think of enduring the reproach and ridicule that would be heaped upon me. No, I will not be so unpopular. Perhaps the flood may not come in my day or in my children’s day. Then there may be some mistake about it; and if it does come, it will not hurt me if I am only prepared for it. But Noah did not think or talk so. What would have been the result if he had? No doubt he would have perished with the world of the ungodly, notwithstanding his piety and faithfulness in the former part of his life. But he believed and obeyed God, and was saved. So if we have this living faith, when God reveals to us new truths, directly we shall act them out in our lives, and this faith will have an important bearing upon our future destiny. Moses, too, was a bright example of the wondrous power of faith. Before him in prospect was the throne of Egypt, with all its wealth and worldly glory. But God called him to identify himself with his people, a nation of slaves; and to labor for their emancipation, and to lead them to a land which he had promised them. He believed, and felt in his inmost soul that it was best to obey God, and leave the glory of Egypt behind. He “chose to suffer affliction with the people of God, rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.” “He esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt.” His faith looked forward with confident expectation to “the recompense of reward,” which God would bestow upon him. When a young man in the present age pursues a like course, he is counted a fool by the world, and even by nominal Christians. But the time will come when Moses and all others, who, like him, have chosen to endure the trials of “the people of God,” and to leave the wealth, honors, and luxuries of this world behind them, will be seen to have been the wisest of men. They will possess an eternal inheritance. They “shall shine as the brightness of the firmament.” They shall enjoy the purest pleasures forevermore. May true faith in us be mighty to “overcome the world.” THE CHASTENING OF THE LORD.
By M. A. Whalen
“My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.” How many times have we forgotten this exhortation which speaketh unto us as unto children! How often have the eyes been so filled with tears and the heart with aching that we could not see the precious promises and declarations of love in close connection with the chastening. The same hand that makes sore, and wounds, will bind up, and heal. The loving, pitying Saviour stands very near the furnace, that nothing may be consumed but the dross; and if the furnace should be heated seven times hotter than it is wont to be, we may rest assured it is because of a failure on our part to learn the lessons he would teach. Then let us not grow weary of correction; for it is sent that we may yield the peaceable fruits of righteousness, and be partakers of the divine nature. Leave it all with the Lord; he knows best. Bow in sweet submission to his will. The Judge of all the earth will do right. Ye lonely, tried and tempted, does the way seem dark and drear? Lift up your head, for your redemption draweth nigh. Take hold of the strength of the Lord, and go forward, trusting in him to open the way before you. Struggle on. Faint not in the burden and heat of the day, and you shall shine forth as the stars in the kingdom of your Father. M. A. WHALEN. Love One Another.
By E. M. G.
Reader, ponder well the following texts of Scripture. To which class do you belong? To those indicated by the left-hand column, or by the right? “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.” 2 Cor. 13:5. “But as touching brotherly love ye have no need that I write unto you; for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another.” 1 Thess. 4:9. “And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.” 1 John 4:21. 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 1:7. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. 1 John 2:10. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 1 John 3:7. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. 1 John 3:14. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. 1 John 4:10, 11. He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. 1 John 2:9. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes. 1 John 2:11. Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 1 John 3:10. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. 1 John 3:14, 15. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar; for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 1 John 4:20. “My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.” 1 John 3:18, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” John 13:35. E. M. G. During Dr. Payson's last illness, a friend, coming into his room, remarked familiarly, “Well, I am sorry to see you lying here on your back.” “Do you know what God puts us on our backs for?” said Dr. Payson, smiling. “In order that we may look upward.” His friend said to him, “I am not come to condole, but to rejoice with you; for it seems to me that this is no place for mourning.” “Well, I am glad to hear that,” was the reply, “for it is not often that I am addressed in such a way. The fact is, I never had less need of condolence, and yet everybody persists in offering it; whereas when I was prosperous and well, and a successful preacher, and really needed condolence, they flattered and congratulated me.” SIN IS TOO EXPENSIVE.
By C. W. S.
Yes, and delaying to repent is dangerous. What has sin cost? There never have been printed enough books to contain a full answer to this query, had every page been devoted to that object; but the chief thing, that which outweighs all the rest in the terrible bill, is the death of the innocent Son of God. When man put forth his hand, and partook of the forbidden fruit, he did it through listening to the reasoning of the arch deceiver, who accused God of falsehood, and charged him with deceit. Said Satan, “Ye shall not surely die.” This, as it was designed to be, was a direct contradiction of the words of God, an accusation of falsehood against the Creator. Satan continued, “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then shall your eyes be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” To make his first statement appear reasonable, he asserts, God knows that if you eat of this fruit you will become as he is, you will become wise; and he is forbidding you this fruit simply for that reason. He knows you will not die; and he knows this fruit will increase your knowledge; and simply to keep you in ignorance, he withholds it from you. Thus did this intruder argue. The woman listened, yielded, then persuaded her husband with the same arguments. In doing this, they forsook the counsel of God, disregarded the warnings of angels, forgot the gratitude they owed their Maker for the glory they had, and the pure comfort and happiness which every circumstance and everything around them was designed to give, turned from their friend, and listened to the insinuations and machinations of a stranger, one of whose character they knew nothing, who had never done them any good, who had no claim upon their attention. It is an infinite wonder that the Son of God should offer to redeem man who had shown such base ingratitude in thus forgetting God and disobeying him. It is an infinite wonder that the Father should suffer his precious Son to undertake a work of such immense cost, when it would have been just to let man reap the fruits of his own planting. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Sin cost the life of the Redeemer, the life of him whose will it was the delight of angels to perform. Adam soon saw what he had done; and when he was informed that the Son of God would provide a way of escape for him at the sacrifice of his own life, then he could see the enormity of his sin, and feel the infinite love of God in proposing thus to rescue him. Such a gift he could not feel free to accept. It were no wonder if he had said in grief, No, Lord, it is too great a price. Let us suffer the penalty. We are lost. Let not the innocent Son of God suffer this for us. But the price has been paid. The ransom has been offered. We look back to the garden of Eden, and we view the failure of our first parents. We see not why they should have sinned. We consider their lost condition, and our heart is sad for them. We hear the plan of their salvation, and we are thrilled with gratitude for them. They must have been grateful for the prospect of again enjoying the glory and blessings they had lost. How is it with us? We have the example of all the past before us, and yet we sin. The God of Adam is our God; the same holy law demands our obedience; yet we show the same ingratitude that Adam showed, the same spirit of disobedience grown a thousand times more strong. How ungrateful we are! We need not be lost forever because Adam sinned—if we are lost it will be on account of our own course. Christ died that all through him should be made alive. 1 Cor. 15:22. Then whether we die the second death will depend upon our own actions. John 5:29; Rev. 20:6. So we stand or fall independently of Adam’s sin. We shall be made alive, and if we have accepted of Jesus as our Saviour, if we have truly repented of having broken God’s holy law, and have found forgiveness through him who offered himself a ransom for all who would believe on him, then on us “the second death shall have no power,” but “we shall be priests of God and of Christ.” Shall we scorn this offering? Shall we neglect it? Shall we not rather gladly, gratefully, speedily accept of this only means of escape from everlasting destruction? Dear reader, the days of your probation are being swiftly numbered with the past. Is it safe for you to wait till next year? Is it safe to put off your duty till next summer? next month? next week? Are you sure even of to-morrow? Sin has cost the suffering, shame, contempt, and death, of your best friend, that lovely One who alone could ransom you. Will you let it also cost you the eternal joys of the life to come, the society of Heaven, of the dear ones who now sleep in Jesus, of the welcome smile of the Redeemer, and the glories of Paradise restored? Will you lose all these? Will you let your indulgence in sin cost you your eternal destruction with the wicked in the fire that God will rain down upon them? Rev. 20:9. Jesus has opened a way of escape, an honorable way. O seek that way before it is too late. It is a humble way. Proud self must yield. We are utterly dependent—let us acknowledge it. We are weak and unworthy—let us feel it. God is good. He will try us, but he will help us. Follow his directions, and though the waves roll high, he will guide our ship; though we walk through the valley of the shadow of death, we will fear no evil: his rod and his staff shall comfort us. C. W. S. THE LAW FOR SUNDAY.
By Uriah Smith
We have long waited for some man to appear who had the temerity to affirm that there was a law in the New Testament for the observance of Sunday. This has been a trying desideratum for the Sunday advocates. We have reminded them of the principle laid down by the apostles that law must lie back of all obligation. “Sin is the transgression of the law.” “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” Sin is not imputed when there is no law. And “Where no law is there is no transgression.” 1 John 3:4; Rom. 3:20; 5:13; 4:15. We have urged them, in view of these plain declarations, to show us what measure of guilt we incurred, and what sin could be imputed to us for not regarding the first day of the week as a sacred rest-day, since there was no law enjoining such a duty. And yet on an issue so plain, and a point so important, they try to dodge the conclusion, generally confessing that there is no law, and then endeavoring to bolster up their bodiless and headless theory by the intensely absurd declaration that there is something just as good as law! This, however, does not seem to satisfy one Eld. H. Exley, of Iowa; and more daring than his colleagues, he comes out in the Record and Evangelist of Feb. 22, 1877, and faces the issue as follows:— “Is the first day of the week commanded? The answer to this question is most unhesitatingly and emphatically given in the affirmative. The Sabbath under the law was not really more sacredly set apart from the rest of the week, than has the first day of the week the divine sanction and the divine command resting upon it.” The “Sabbath under the law” was sacredly set apart by a voice from the Most High, which shook the earth, and it was written in the most explicit terms by his finger on tables of stone. According to Mr. E., the first day of the week has been just as explicitly set apart. Will he give us the occasion? the circumstances? the reason? the words? We have always supposed a law or a commandment must be expressed in some words; that a Sabbatic institution must be founded by the rest of some divine being upon the day. But when did any divine being rest upon the first day of the week? Where is the record of any blessing or sanctification of the day? Where is the word Sabbath used in connection with it? Where is there any law for refraining from labor upon it, or in any manner enjoining it as a sacred day? All this Mr. E. boldly affirms pertains to the first day of the week. How does he show it? We wade through a whole column of pointless declarations aimed at nothing and hitting the mark splendidly, when the Elder reaches Troas, and makes his first stand for a Sunday law. Respecting the disciples’ coming together at this time on the first day of the week to break bread, Acts 20:7, he makes these assertions:— “It was their custom, their constant habit, and they did it under apostolic instruction.” We challenge him to prove any one of these assertions. There is nothing to show that it was their custom. There is no record of any other religious meeting on the first day of the week in all the New Testament. How, then, in the name of logic, does he prove a “constant habit.” As to “apostolic instruction,” the apostles have not left on record the first iota of instruction for such a practice. How, then, does it happen that Mr. E. is so much wiser than the New Testament? It was simply an incidental meeting, “the disciples having come together” as Paul was to depart on the morrow. But he was there the Sunday before this. Why is no mention made of that? The great fact, however, to be looked at on this occasion is that this meeting was in the evening of the day, which, according to Bible reckoning, was the first part of the day, corresponding to what is now Saturday night. See all respectable authorities upon this point. The daylight following that meeting would of course be Sunday; and when that daylight dawned upon them, Paul started off upon his long journey to Jerusalem. He gave the light part of the day, beyond all contradiction, to secular business. If his meeting on the first part of the day gave it any sacredness, his journey on the last part took that sacredness all away from it. But what were Paul’s companions doing meanwhile? The record is that they went before to ship. That is, while Paul was remaining behind, preaching to the disciples, the rest of his company were taking the ship round to Assos. Whoever will look at these places on the map will readily understand these movements of the apostles. To go from Troas to Assos by ship was to go round a long promontory which jutted out into the Aegean Sea. This would take much more time than to go across the base of the promontory from Troas to Assos on foot. But the vessel had to be taken round. So the others set out upon this duty, Paul remaining to hold another meeting, then intending to go across on foot and meet them the next day at Assos, which he did, as the record states. Therefore, while Paul was preaching, the rest of his company were out upon the sea working as sailors work, propelling their vessel forward, tacking, trimming their sails, perhaps rowing with all their strength, at any rate, doing anything but enjoying a day of rest and keeping a Sabbath. If Paul was making, or even sanctioning, a first-day Sabbath at Troas, what were these others doing? We imagine, if some zealous modern Sunday-keeper had been there when the disciples started off with their ship, we should have seen him rushing up-stairs to where Paul was preaching, and shouting, “Paul! Paul! these vagabonds, Luke and your other companions, are sailing off with their ship on this holy day. While you are here enforcing the first-day Sabbath, as explicitly as God gave the seventh from Sinai, they are breaking your preaching all down by going off about their business! Call them back! Call them back!” And we can imagine the apostle in calm dignity replying, “My excited friend, when did you break loose from heathenism? Sunday is a heathen, not a Christian institution. I have received nothing from the Lord concerning it. I am not here to keep or teach it, as a sacred day. The Sabbath is past, and now is the time to work. My companions are right in going off with the ship, and as soon as daylight comes, I am off myself, to meet them at Assos.” If we are to infer anything from the meeting at Troas, that inference is in favor of the Sabbath. For Paul was five days sailing from Philippi to Troas, a distance which critics tell us would occupy about two days in fair weather. This shows that he must have been detained by adverse winds, or circumstances beyond his control, so that he did not reach Troas till the first day of the week. But he must have reached there early on that day; for he abode there seven days, as the record states, and was ready to leave Saturday night. The inference, therefore, is plainly this: that not reaching Troas till after the Sabbath, he tarried a whole week to spend a Sabbath with them; and as soon as the Sabbath was past, Luke and the others immediately started off with the ship, while Paul, by stopping and going across to Assos on foot, could, as already explained, enjoy a few more hours’ intercourse with the disciples there. But whatever its bearing on the Sabbath, this instance shows unmistakably that Paul regarded Sunday as only a secular day. His example explicitly teaches this; while, as for precept, the record says nothing of that one way or the other. It is time the people were informed upon these points, so that ministers should come to feel that the common intelligence of their hearers would hold them to a strict account for such palpable contradictions of the sacred record, and such abuse of logic, and that they could not pursue a course like this, without incurring the disgrace which justly belongs thereto. Other points will be noticed next week. U. S.