Sovereign Grace and Good Works (Trott) 1845

Sovereign Grace and Good Works



When I first saw the proposition, I shrank from it as a task less befitting me to undertake than others of our brethren, seeing that my practice or feelings seemed less corresponding with the gospel than was the case with others. But on further reflection, I thought that my experience in the case might have its use, and would be more




consoling to some of the children of God than would a treatise from those who have been enabled more uniformly to keep under the workings and corruptions of their nature; if indeed mine is the experience of a child of grace. I therefore commenced writing on the subject previous to brother Jewett’s death; and I have since thought that perhaps what I had written might not be unacceptable to some of the readers of the Signs; I have therefore finished what I had to say on the subject, and changed the address to the Signs. I have no doubt that some positions which my experience will oblige me to occupy will astonish some brethren.

Brother Jewett rightly qualified this subject by defining it as a spiritual reception of the doctrine of Christ; for a mere theoretical reception of sound doctrine, or having only the natural judgment convinced of the truth of it, is but a dead faith, and of course brings forth no spiritual fruits. A connection between the doctrine of Sovereign Grace and Good Works was evidently understood, by Paul, to exist; for after making a full representation of the sovereignty of God as manifested in the experience of salvation, (Titus iii. 3—7,) he immediately adds; (verse 8,) “This is a faithful saying, and these things I will, that thou affirm constantly, that they that have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works.” He thus teaches not only that this doctrine has a tendency to good works, but also that this is the good works themselves to excite believers to them. How different thus from the notion that this doctrine tends to licentiousness! When the natural judgment alone is convinced that salvation is by grace, and there is a reliance on that, only for escaping future punishment, there may probably be a tendency to licentiousness. And it is no wonder that the opposers of this doctrine, who know nothing but natural reason as their guide, should view the doctrine of grace in this light. But we may be assured, that whoever can deliberately draw such a conclusion and act under its influences, gives decisive evidence that he is ignorant of that hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world unto our glory, even that mystery that, “had the princes of this world known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”

In coming more directly to the subject in view, I will first try to determine what good works are in a gospel sense.


The old scholastic definition of good works is, “that they are such as are done from a right principle, by a right rule, and to a right end;” but I would prefer a definition more simple. Indeed, good works do not require so much to be done by rule; they are not like positive institutions which require a strict observance of the letter of the command. Hence our Lord has resolved all religious rules upon this point in one, “Therefore all things that ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” Matt. vii. 12. The Lord himself thus explains it, for good works are such words as are kind and useful to others. Hence the apostle defines them by saying, “These things are good and profitable unto men.” Titus iii. 8. Many seem to suppose that good works principally consist in religious exercises. Hence they lay great stress upon a round of what they call duties, or upon a certain kind of bodily exercises; and being attentive to these, are not careful to avoid covetousness, dishonesty, hatred, &c. They suppose that they are to do good to God, and that for this goodness he will reward them; as though if they kept the Sabbath strictly, or gave their money for religious purposes, God was thereby benefited. Even Eliphaz, the Temanite, had a better view than this of these things; he says, “Can a man be profitable unto God as he that is wise may be profitable unto himself?” So Eliphaz, “If thou sinnest, what doest thou against him? or if thy transgressions be multiplied, what doest thou unto him? If thou be righteous, what givest thou him, or what receiveth he of thy hand? Thy wickedness may hurt a man as thou art; and thy righteousness may profit the son of man.” Job xxii. 2; and xxxv. 6—8. The Psalmist in evidently personating Christ says, “O my soul, thou hast said unto the Lord, Thou art my Lord: my goodness extendeth not to thee; but to the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent, in whom is all my delight.” Psalm xvi. 2 & 3.

Religious exercises, such as waiting upon God, have come more properly under the idea of privileges, than of works; though there is an obligation resting upon the believer to observe the institutions of the gospel, and to honor God in all his ways. Good works are set forth in the scriptures as carrying out the spirit of the second table of the Decalogue. Thus Paul in his exhortation to the Romans summed it all up by saying, “Love is the fulfilling of the law.” He before said, “For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, &c., and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;” and adds, “Love worketh no ill to his neighbor.”—Rom. xiii. 9 & 10. By an examination of all that is said on this subject in the New Testament, we shall find they are presented to view as both positive and negative: that is, they consist in being beneficial to others, or in doing good unto all men, especially unto those who are of the household of faith, as we have opportunity; and also in a filling up of the relations we may sustain, both civil and religious; as well as in refraining from whatever would be injurious to others. But then good works, in a gospel point of view, or as evidences of a gracious state, consist in something more than a mere performance of the act. Many acts which in themselves are beneficial to others, are performed in a spirit or from a motive that is not good, but evil. Such is the case manifestly with much of “charity and self-denial” made of what they call charitable societies, &c., by the religious multitude at this day. They are done either to be seen of men, or as a means of bringing those to whom they are done, in some way under their influence; or to make up a sum of righteousness on which to rest their hopes of salvation; or perhaps in a real infidel spirit, to show how good they can be and how much better human nature is, than those who believe the scriptures describe it to be.

There is a meekness, a kindness of feeling in doing good works, a fear of God and regard to the honor of his cause, in shunning to do wrong, which are more decisive evidences of a gracious spirit, than the mere doing or shunning the act. Yes, the humility and self-condemnation frequently manifested by the children of grace, for doing what they ought not to have done, and for not doing as they ought, gives more assurance to others of their true love to God, than would the not doing or doing the acts. The child of grace does nothing for mere ostentation and show, but from a sense of duty and a love to righteousness.



Neither is a studied austerity, unless on some peculiar occasions, necessary. Some are so shy in what they do for the poor, and for the support of the gospel ministry, as almost to lead to the belief, that they are ashamed to have it known that their religious impressions disposed them to kindness to the one, or fellowship for the other.

But to come to the existing connection between a spiritual reception of the doctrine of Christ and good works; we will remark,

First, That such reception of the doctrine of Christ implies the being born again—not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible; consequently it implies that the law in its spirituality has been written in their hearts, so that the love of God has been implanted therein. In this change, is at once presented the principle of good works. Love to God leads to a desire to be like him, and to a delight in his law after the inward man. This change also produces an equal repugnance from a loathing of sin and of ourselves on account of it, and consequently we desire not to be under its influence. But the inquiry looks to the tendency whether soundness of doctrine as received by faith tends to the maintaining of good works. Its direct tendency evidently is towards the maintenance of good works. The notions of conditional acceptance with God, by observing the holiness of God, in supposing that he can let possessed with imperfect obedience, and by hiding the exceeding sinfulness of sin so as to make the creature satisfied with his imperfect and unholy performance of duties, tends to make him careless about motives, so long as he can keep up the appearance of religious devotion, and about the performance of good works or religious duties, any further than he expects to be rewarded for them, or than he supposes necessary to secure his acceptance.

But the doctrine of Christ gives such enlarged views of the holiness of God as to lead those who receive it so to feel the hidden abominations of their own hearts in contrast therewith as to destroy all confidence in any of their own acts, and to pant after more holiness in heart and life. In addition, sound doctrine gives such a view of the riches of the love and grace of God towards vile, unworthy sinners, that whenever faith gives a glimpse of it, every power of mind is captivated thereby, and they are made earnestly to desire to glorify God in their bodies and in their spirits which are his.

Again: a belief in this doctrine, by giving us a deep sense of the deceitfulness of our hearts, and the depravity of our nature, leads us to be guarded against trusting to our own hearts, or depending on our own resolutions and strength, and to seek frequent supplies of grace and strength to resist temptations, and to overcome the corruptions of our natures, and to do that which is right. And “what was Paul’s experience, is the experience of every believer.” “When I am weak, then am I strong.” 2 Cor. xii. 10. And again, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” Phil. iv. 13. Whosoever we go forward carelessly or with self-confidence, we are sure to come short or fall; but more so even confounded in what manner this weakness, this heart so readily trusting in God. Once more, that faith which receives and rests upon the doctrine of Christ, is that which overcometh the world, even our faith. “I John v. 4. Faith, taking hold of the immutability of God in his purposes and promises, leads us forward as disciples of Christ, to face the frown and scorn of the world; presenting to us the certainty and fulness of salvation in Christ Jesus; it stifles us from the fiery darts of the adversary, and strengthens us to meet the sword and the fury of the persecutor; assuring us of the love and mercy of God to our souls, and the bounteousness of the Savior, it drives away these death-like chills which the world by its influence tends to throw over the graces of the Spirit and our soul’s comfort; and presenting to our minds the declarations of God’s word, it fills the tempted in his motions to ensure us, as for instance, when satan would persuade us that we might indulge in this gratification of the flesh, or that, without regarding to the cause of Christ, as it would not be known, &c., faith brings forward such antidotes as these, “Be sure your sin will find you out.”—Num.

xxxii. 23; “You only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for all your iniquities.”—Amos iii. 2; or as temptation is varied, so faith brings from the treasury that which meets it.



There may be subdivisions of tendencies connected with the reception of sound doctrine, to maintain good works. 1st. As already noticed, the love and mercy of God invites us to gratitude, and a strong desire to show our love to him by a denying of ourselves, and a walking in obedience to his ways. 2d. From our love to his doctrine, the very reproach and opposition it meets with tends to increase in us the desire to show forth its holy and beneficent nature in our lives and conversation, and to avoid occasioning reproach to it. 3d. The promises of grace and strength, and of escape in the time of temptation, which this doctrine shows to be “Yea and Amen in Christ Jesus,” encourage us to pursue the paths marked in the New Testament, regardless of the difficulties we may meet with. I will add, the fear of experiencing the frowns of our heavenly Father, and of being left to ourselves, and to mourn in darkness, is a strong inducement to those who have known what it is to have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, to watch, fusses and prayer against temptation. So that these and the like inducements, the children of gospel liberty need not go back to the letter and bondage of the law, to find in its demands and threats that which will excite them to good works.

I have thus sketched the direct tendency of sound doctrine to good works, and the consequent connection between them. But do we at this day see this connection fully manifest in ourselves and others generally, with, we hope, believe the doctrine of Christ? I think we do; though in some it is there as great a deficiency, perhaps, as in myself. How are we to account for this failure? I think briefly answer, from the weakness of our faith, and the prevalency of that sin which so easily besets us, viz: unbelief. But I wish to be indulged in some extended remarks on this point.

In the first place, we are to bear in mind, and we shall be often reminded of it in our sorrows, that whilst we are made partakers, if children of the kingdom, of a life that was created in Christ Jesus and good works, and therefore in the new man delight in holiness, yet the old, the Adamic man is not changed, but is in itself as earthly, sensual, and devilish as ever. Hence the warfare in the believer, between the flesh and the spirit, between Christ and Adam. Here I wish, if I can, to present the subject of the warfare in its different bearings in a true light. For just here it is that the formalist who, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, bolsters himself up in his own self-importance, and trusting to his own self-taught belief of the doctrine of Christ, he walketh after the flesh without remorse of conscience.—And here it is, that the child of grace finds an abundant source of doubts and fears.

The position I have above laid down, that there is no change of nature, is correct; but still the implanting in us of that life which is the light of men, has given us to know the hidden depravity of our hearts, ins convinced our natural judgement, that these are evil and bad; and that the commandment is holy, just and good, and that a departure from the principle of love to God and love to our neighbor, is evil and sinful. And we know, as men, that an indulgence in sin, and a neglect of our obligations as christians, bring darkness and sorrow, and convinced of the truth and consistency of the doctrine of Christ, our minds and affections participate in the joys and sorrows of the new man. Yet after all this, our passions, appetites, self-love, &c., are left in their natural strength and depraved bias; and not only show themselves as such in the breasts of the believer, but come forward with their demands for gratification. I am led to the conclusion, from this confidence which natural persons have in their power to keep themselves, and from the equanimity of mind and the strict morality that many such are able to maintain, contrasted with the bitter complaints the children of grace make of themselves, that the depravity in believers is frequently stirred up, and made in one shape or another, far more turbulent in their breasts, and impudent in its demands for gratification, than in others, so that if it were not for the opposition of the new man, and its leading them in their draughts to look to God for deliverance, they would be overwhelmed in their corruptions. Not only are their sins reversed, stirred up at first by the demands of the law being set home, but God, as in the case of Israel in the wilderness, (Deut. viii. 2,) will have his people from time to time know what is in their heart, and therefore suffer Satan to stir up their corruptions.


At one time a temptation will be presented for indulgence, under so much disguise, and with so much plausibility, and at another time it will come so suddenly and unexpectedly, that the poor believer is almost swept away by it, and would have been quite, had not the Lord made a way for his escape. At another time some temptation from without will unite with some inward corruption, and make and present its demand for indulgence in such an insinuating manner and with such pertinaciousness, notwithstanding all the remonstrance of the judgement, and all the abhorrence of the spirit of the thing and perhaps at times the spirit and judgement both appear to be asleep, and the affections seem to contemplate with pleasure the indulgence, so that when the mind is again aroused to a sense of the danger, the poor, unarmed, and confounded soul, concludes that he is gone, and carried away he must be by the temptation, and becomes discouraged, and almost arrives at the conclusion that it is of no use any longer to contend against it. Perhaps in this state of the confusion of his mind Satan tempts him with the suggestion that the only way to escape being led into open sin, and from disgracing his profession, is to put an end to his existence.

Thus the believer is at times tossed in his little bark upon the billows of his corruption, raised by the winds of temptation, and his Lord appearing to be asleep, or to care not for him, yet in the end, at the last extremity, he will be made to cry for help, and the Lord will appear to hush the storm and give peace. Hence I conclude that it is not grace, or the Spirit of life, in the believer, that will keep him from being overcome by his corruptions, and the temptations he meets with, but special grace is manifested in calling his faith into exercise; or otherwise encouraging and strengthening him to maintain the conflict, or in some way providing for his escape. Hence the evidences of being a child of grace, though it is ground for hope that the Lord will keep him, is no just ground for the individual to conclude he can keep himself from falling; nor on the other hand, is his being tempted a just reason for him to conclude that he is not a child of grace. Watchfulness and prayer, and enduring hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ, are important duties of believers—they are essential to his enjoying the consolations of the gospel, and to his glorifying God in his body and spirit. But still the believer’s strength and security for living thus to God is not in himself, but alone in God, and his having a spirit of prayer is as God is pleased to impart it.

I think I am sustained in my views above expressed, both by the experience of the believer and the language of scripture; thus, for instance, (Rom. viii. 20.) For the creature (the new creature) was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope; and John xv. 5, “For without me ye can do nothing.”

In the second place, if the facts are so as we have endeavored to show from experience, and this sustained by scripture, then the conclusion must be, that the present low state of the churches, and the severe conflicts which many of the children of God are experiencing at this day, with the world, the flesh, and the devil, are of God’s appointment and permission. Whether this be as a chastisement for their ingratitude in being kept from being swept away by the anti-christian flood, and for too great a disposition to yield to the influence of the world, or whether it be for the purifying of the churches, by separating from them all who are not kept by the power of God, and for disciplining the saints to a sense of their own weakness, and of their dependence on God to keep and sustain them, preparatory to the great struggle with the men of sin, which may be shortly approaching, or both, I am not prepared to say.

In conclusion, I would say that I would like to see some of our brethren on this subject, and particularly on the struggle between the flesh and spirit, and of the believer’s being kept not by any power in the new man, but by the power of God through faith, &c. Brother Burton knows something of fighting without old fears within, so does brother Buck, and others, if they would write.


In my former draught, I referred also to brother West, but his pen is laid silently by, being happily for him exchanged for a harp in glory, having passed victoriously through the great tribulation, having washed his robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Though we may miss the wholesome productions of his pen through the columns of the Signs, and many a scattered sheep grieve the loss of his ministerial labors, yet for him we have no ground to mourn. But may such be the case with some of us who are yet in Bochim? Yours, &c.,


S. TROTT.Centreville,
Fairfax Co., Va.,

NEW SCHOOL AND OLLD SCHOOL CONFLICTS IN THE SOUTH (Santamaria)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0HCPXP46D

We remember the rise of the Southern Baptist Convention. We remember the growth of missionary organizations, seminaries, Sunday schools, publishing houses, andHistory is often remembered through its outcomes while forgetting the convictions that produced them. denominational boards. We remember the names of famous institutions that continue to influence millions of Christians around the world.

What we too often forget is the struggle that accompanied their birth.

Behind every convention stood a controversy. Behind every institution stood a question. Behind every division stood men whose consciences would not permit compromise.

This book tells that story.

It is not merely another history of nineteenth-century Baptists. It is an investigation into one of the defining theological conflicts in American Christianity—a conflict that reshaped churches, associations, friendships, and entire denominations. It was a struggle over authority. Not civil authority. Not political authority. But the authority of Christ over His church.

The men who appear in these pages were not minor figures arguing over insignificant details. They were among the most gifted Baptist leaders of their generation. Richard Furman, William Bullein Johnson, Richard Fuller, John L. Dagg, Basil Manly, J. B. Jeter, John Mason Peck, R. B. C. Howell, Gilbert Beebe, Joshua Lawrence, Wilson Thompson, Thomas P. Dudley, Samuel Trott, and many others were convinced that they were defending the future of Christ's kingdom.

Their disagreement was not over whether the gospel should be preached.

It was over how Christ intended His churches to carry out that work.

One side believed that missionary boards, conventions, seminaries, Sunday schools, publication societies, and other cooperative organizations were legitimate instruments through which the churches could fulfill the Great Commission.

The other believed that these institutions, however useful they appeared, lacked New Testament authority and gradually displaced the simplicity of Christ's churches with an elaborate system of religious machinery.

Neither side regarded the controversy as secondary.

Each believed the honor of Christ, the authority of Scripture, and the purity of the churches were at stake.

Modern readers often dismiss these debates as relics of another age. That would be a profound mistake.

The questions raised by these nineteenth-century Baptists have never disappeared.

Who possesses authority in Christ's church?

What distinguishes a helpful method from an unauthorized institution?

Can usefulness establish legitimacy?

Does the silence of Scripture grant liberty, or does it impose restraint?

How much organization can the church create before that organization begins to govern the church itself?

These questions continue to confront every generation of Christians.

One of the greatest strengths of this volume is its determination to let the participants speak for themselves. Rather than constructing arguments from modern assumptions, it returns repeatedly to original sermons, autobiographies, pamphlets, denominational newspapers, official declarations, letters, and theological treatises. The result is a work grounded in the documentary record rather than in later legend or denominational memory.

Readers will also discover that the controversy was far more complex than popular summaries suggest. These were not simply "missionaries" against "anti-missionaries," nor "progressives" against "traditionalists." Many of the men on both sides were deeply Calvinistic. Most were zealous evangelists. Many endured hardship, poverty, and relentless travel in service to Christ. They often shared far more doctrinal agreement than disagreement. Their division centered upon ecclesiology—how Christ governs His church and how His work is to be carried forward.

That realization gives this book unusual importance.

It rescues the controversy from caricature.

It restores historical context.

It introduces readers to forgotten leaders whose influence extended far beyond their own generation.

Perhaps most importantly, it reminds us that sincere Christians can reach dramatically different conclusions while appealing to the same Scriptures. The reader is invited not merely to observe the controversy but to examine the arguments with fairness, intellectual honesty, and reverence for the Word of God.

Whether one ultimately agrees with the Old School Baptists or with their Missionary Baptist opponents, no thoughtful reader can finish this work without a deeper appreciation for the seriousness with which these men approached the government of Christ's church.

They were willing to lose influence, reputation, friends, churches, and entire associations rather than surrender what they believed Scripture required.

Such conviction deserves to be understood before it is judged.

The debates recorded in these pages are not museum pieces. They continue to echo wherever Christians ask how the church should be governed, how ministers should be prepared, how missions should be supported, and how faithfully the modern church reflects the pattern established by Christ and His apostles.

May this volume encourage every reader to examine the historical evidence carefully, weigh every argument by the Scriptures, and remember that every generation must answer the enduring question anew:

Who has the right to determine the order and work of Christ's church—human wisdom, however effective it appears, or the authority of Christ as revealed in His Word?

Guillermo Santamaria

WORSHIP AND EDIFICATION IN THE GATHERED CHURCH (Santamara)

 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0HD7L2JG8

There are words so familiar that we eventually stop examining them. We repeat them because our parents repeated them, because our churches placed them upon signs and bulletins, and because generations before us assumed that everyone understood what they meant.

One of those words is worship.

Christians speak of “going to worship.” Churches announce a “worship service.” Music is called “worship,” musicians are called a “worship team,” and the person directing congregational singing is called a “worship leader.” The opening portion of the Sunday meeting is described as worship, after which the congregation settles down to hear the sermon.

These expressions have become so deeply woven into modern Christian speech that questioning them can sound almost irreverent.

But reverence for tradition must never become a substitute for submission to Scripture.

This book asks a question that many Christians have never been encouraged to ask:

Where does the New Testament actually say that the primary purpose of the church gathering is to conduct a worship service?

The question is not asked because worship is unimportant. It is asked because worship is too important to be reduced to a scheduled performance, a musical atmosphere, an ecclesiastical ceremony, or a platform activity carried out before a mostly silent congregation.

The New Testament presents the entire Christian life as worship. Believers belong to God, approach him through Christ, pray, praise, serve, sacrifice, obey, give, suffer, love, and offer their bodies to him as living sacrifices. Yet when the apostles regulate what happens as the church comes together, the clearest governing command is not, “Let everything be performed as worship,” but, “Let all things be done unto edifying.” The book therefore does not deny the Godward character of the assembly; it challenges the use of worship as a justification for congregational passivity.

That distinction is not small.

It reaches into the heart of what the church believes itself to be.

Is the church an audience gathered around a platform?

Is it a crowd watching trained religious professionals perform sacred duties?

Is it a room filled with listeners whose principal responsibility is to sit quietly while one person prays, one person interprets Scripture, one person speaks, and a selected group supplies the music?

Or is the church the living body of Jesus Christ, in which every member has received grace and every part has been joined to the others for the good of the whole?

The New Testament does not describe the church as one mouth surrounded by hundreds of ears.

It describes a body.

A body lives because its members are connected. It grows because every part supplies what Christ has given it to supply. It suffers when one member suffers. It rejoices when one member is honored. It cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of thee,” nor to the foot, “Your contribution is unnecessary because the eye and the mouth will perform everything for you.”

Yet this is precisely what many churches have done without realizing it.

They have not openly denied the priesthood of believers. They have confessed it in their doctrines and then quietly contradicted it in their arrangements. They have declared that every Christian possesses the Holy Spirit while constructing gatherings in which almost no one except the appointed leaders may be heard. They have preached that every believer has a gift while allowing most gifts no meaningful expression in the corporate life of the church.

The people attend.

They listen.

They sing the words chosen for them.

They repeat prepared responses.

They receive a benediction.

Then they return home carrying burdens that no one heard, questions that no one permitted them to ask, griefs that no one addressed, insights that no one received, and gifts that no one expected them to use.

This book does not condemn preaching. It honors the preaching of the Word.

It does not reject pastors and teachers. It recognizes them as gifts of the risen Christ.

It does not despise order. It insists upon order.

It does not romanticize Corinthian confusion, untested prophecy, emotional exhibition, or the reckless opening of the floor to every self-appointed teacher.

The alternative to clerical domination is not congregational chaos.

The alternative to silence is not disorder.

The alternative to one person doing everything is not everyone doing whatever seems right in his own eyes.

Scripture provides a better way: participation governed by truth, gifts governed by love, speech governed by intelligibility, ministry governed by discernment, and the entire gathering governed by the command that everything be done for the building up of the church.

Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 14 should shake every comfortable assumption about public worship.

A man may speak to God.

He may give thanks.

He may give thanks well.

His experience may be sincere. His intention may be spiritual. His words may rise directly toward heaven.

Yet Paul says:

“The other is not edified.”

And because the other is not edified, the Godward speaker is commanded to remain silent in the church.

That single apostolic judgment destroys the claim that Godward intention alone is sufficient to justify a congregational practice.

The question is not merely, “Was God addressed?”

The question is also, “Was Christ’s body built up?”

Could the people understand?

Could they say “Amen”?

Were they instructed?

Were they comforted?

Were they exhorted?

Were they equipped?

Were they drawn toward holiness, love, unity, maturity, and service?

Did grace pass from one member to another?

The church does not glorify God by ignoring the people whom God purchased with the blood of his Son.

It does not honor Christ by rendering his body voiceless.

It does not submit to the Spirit by preventing the gifts distributed by the Spirit from serving the common good.

It does not defend order by confusing order with inactivity.

It does not protect the pulpit by allowing the pulpit to replace the body.

There is a sobering danger on both sides of this discussion.

The highly structured church may become so controlled that the body can scarcely move.

The highly informal church may become so uncontrolled that the body cannot mature.

One may suppress the gifts of the saints.

The other may glorify untested opinion.

One may place nearly everything in the hands of the clergy.

The other may treat spiritual authority as though it were unnecessary.

One may mistake silence for reverence.

The other may mistake noise for life.

The apostolic church is neither a religious theater nor an undisciplined gathering of competing voices. It is an ordered body under the lordship of Jesus Christ.

This book therefore refuses the easy choice between lifeless formalism and reckless spontaneity.

It calls for something deeper.

It calls for gatherings in which Scripture is read with authority, Christ is preached faithfully, prayers are understood, songs teach the Word, the Lord’s Supper displays the unity of the body, the poor are not humiliated, discipline is exercised redemptively, leaders equip rather than replace the saints, and every member is encouraged to serve according to the grace received.

It also forces us to confront what has happened to the word worship.

In many churches, worship has become nearly synonymous with music. The lights dim. The instruments begin. The emotional intensity rises. People are told that they are entering the presence of God—as though God had been absent during the reading of Scripture, the prayers of the saints, the sharing of burdens, the breaking of bread, or the quiet service of one believer to another.

Music may be glorious.

Singing may be worship.

But according to the apostle, congregational singing is also a form of teaching and admonishing one another. A song does not cease to be directed toward the Lord because it serves the church. It becomes a fuller expression of Christian worship precisely because it carries the word of Christ into the hearts of the saints.

The vertical and horizontal dimensions cannot be torn apart.

Love for God cannot be separated from love for the brother.

The offering cannot be separated from reconciliation.

The Lord’s Supper cannot be separated from regard for the poor.

Spiritual gifts cannot be separated from the common good.

Praise cannot be separated from doing good and sharing.

Preaching cannot be separated from equipping the saints for ministry.

The glory of God cannot be separated from the growth of Christ’s body.

This is not a secondary matter of preference, personality, or style.

It concerns obedience.

Churches frequently divide over whether worship should be contemporary or traditional, formal or informal, accompanied or unaccompanied, liturgical or spontaneous. Those questions may have their place, but they can distract from the more searching apostolic question:

Did everything that occurred build up the church in truth and love?

A service may be ancient and fail that test.

A service may be modern and fail that test.

A sermon may be eloquent and fail that test.

A song may be beautiful and fail that test.

A prayer may sound reverent and fail that test.

A participatory meeting may appear liberating and fail that test.

No tradition is exempt.

No minister is exempt.

No congregation is exempt.

No practice becomes sacred merely because it is familiar.

Every form must stand before the Word of God.

The chapters that follow do not attempt to destroy worship but to rescue it from reduction. They do not seek to lower our view of God but to raise our view of what God is doing when his church gathers. The assembly is not merely a weekly religious event. It is a manifestation of the risen Christ's body. It is a people standing before God, through the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit, receiving grace and ministering that grace to one another.

The book’s final vision holds together what should never have been separated: God’s glory, Christ’s authority, the Spirit’s gifts, the ministry of the Word, ordained leadership, congregational discernment, mutual service, reverence, order, and edification.

May these pages disturb traditions that have gone unexamined.

May they humble leaders who have carried responsibilities Christ intended the whole body to share.

May they awaken saints who have been trained to believe that attendance is ministry and silence is faithfulness.

May they challenge churches that call people members while expecting them to function as spectators.

May they also restrain those who confuse participation with authority, spontaneity with spirituality, and disorder with freedom.

Above all, may they turn our eyes again to Jesus Christ, the Head of the church.

The church belongs to him.

Its ministers belong to him.

Its gifts belong to him.

Its gatherings belong to him.

Its songs, prayers, sermons, ordinances, offerings, and acts of service belong to him.

And the people sitting silently in the pews belong to him too.

They are not an audience to be managed.

They are not customers to be pleased.

They are not a crowd to be impressed.

They are the flock for which Christ shed his blood, the temple in which his Spirit dwells, and the body through which his life is to be made visible.

The pulpit is biblical.

Pastoral leadership is biblical.

Attentive hearing is biblical.

Reverence is biblical.

Order is biblical.

But so are the gifts of the saints, the discernment of the congregation, the ministry of one member to another, the breaking of bread, the bearing of burdens, the comforting of the sorrowful, the admonishing of the wandering, and the active working of every part.

The church must never choose between worshiping God and edifying his people.

God has joined them together.

What God has joined, the traditions of men must not put asunder.

Guillermo Santamaria

INTOLERANCE OF THE PROTESTANTS WHEN IN POWER (Beene/Santamaria)

 https://a.co/d/08x1Akkc

ONCE YOU CLICK HERE, CLICK ON THE TOP LINK ON THE TOP LINK THAT APPEARS IN THE NEXT WINDOW

There are moments in history when the persecuted become the persecutors, when those who once cried out for liberty begin to silence the cries of others, and when the hand that once trembled beneath oppression is raised to impose oppression upon another.

Such moments should make every Christian tremble.

The history presented in this book is not comfortable. It was never intended to be. It reaches into some of the darkest chambers of Protestant history and exposes a painful contradiction: men and churches that pleaded for freedom when they were weak sometimes denied freedom to others when they became strong.

They knew the darkness of prison cells. They knew the bitterness of exile. They knew what it meant to have their worship forbidden, their books burned, their ministers silenced, and their consciences placed beneath the authority of kings, bishops, and magistrates. They understood the terror of being told that faith must conform to the demands of the state.

Yet when political power passed into Protestant hands, some repeated the very evils against which they had protested.

Catholics, Quakers, Baptists, dissenters, and others discovered that persecution does not cease merely because the persecutor carries a different Bible, bears a different denominational name, or speaks in the language of reform. The prison remains a prison. The whip remains a whip. Exile remains exile. The grave remains a grave.

Religious oppression does not become holy merely because it is committed by those who believe themselves to be defending truth.

That is the terrible lesson of these pages.

This book is not written to mock the Reformation, diminish the courage of Protestant martyrs, or deny the great spiritual blessings that followed the recovery of biblical truth. The Reformation broke chains that had bound minds and consciences for centuries. It restored the Scriptures to ordinary people, challenged corrupt authority, and called men and women back to the Word of God.

But no movement, however necessary, is beyond examination. No church tradition is made righteous merely by recounting its victories. No people can honestly condemn the sins committed against them while refusing to confess the sins committed by them.

History demands honesty.

Christian faith demands even more.

The execution of Michael Servetus, the hanging of Quakers in Massachusetts, the persecution of Baptists, the violence of religious conflict in Scotland, and the bitter struggles over conscience in Europe and America cannot be dismissed as unfortunate footnotes. They reveal what happens when the church reaches for the sword of the state and when civil authority claims the right to govern the human soul.

The state may restrain violence. It may punish theft, murder, fraud, and injustice. But it cannot create faith. It cannot compel repentance. It cannot regenerate a heart. It cannot produce worship acceptable to God.

A forced confession is not faith.

A coerced baptism is not obedience.

A prayer uttered beneath threat is not worship.

A church filled through fear is not a church made alive by the Spirit of God.

The conscience belongs to God. It is not the property of rulers, councils, parliaments, synods, bishops, pastors, or majorities. When men attempt to rule the conscience, they enter a sanctuary into which God has not invited them.

The most disturbing truth contained in this history is that persecution is rarely carried out by people who believe themselves evil. It is usually committed by those who are convinced that their cause is righteous, their doctrine is pure, their nation is threatened, and their actions are necessary.

They do not call it cruelty. They call it order.

They do not call it oppression. They call it protection.

They do not call it tyranny. They call it faithfulness.

This is why the warnings of history remain urgent.

The greatest danger may not come from those who openly despise religion, but from those who love their own religion so fiercely that they are willing to punish anyone who refuses to accept it. Zeal without humility can become brutality. Conviction without charity can become oppression. Truth defended by violence is dishonored by the very means used to defend it.

The gospel never needed the executioner.

Christ did not command His disciples to conquer unbelief through prisons, fines, banishment, or death. His kingdom is not advanced by coercion. The weapons of Christian warfare are not carnal. The gospel addresses the heart through proclamation, persuasion, prayer, sacrifice, patience, and love.

When Peter drew the sword, Christ commanded him to put it away.

That command still stands.

Every generation is tempted to believe that it is too enlightened to repeat the sins of the past. Yet the spirit of intolerance does not disappear. It changes its clothing. It learns new language. It finds new institutions through which to speak. It may operate through religious authorities, political parties, cultural majorities, academic systems, or public outrage.

Its demand is always similar: conform, remain silent, or suffer.

That is why this book concerns more than Protestants, Catholics, Quakers, Baptists, or the controversies of former centuries. It concerns the permanent danger of human power when it attempts to govern belief.

Religious liberty cannot mean liberty only for those whose doctrines we approve. If liberty belongs only to the majority, it is not liberty. If conscience is protected only when it agrees with the government, it is not conscience. If Christians demand freedom for themselves while denying it to others, they have not defended religious liberty; they have merely defended religious privilege.

The true test of our commitment to liberty is not whether we defend those who speak as we speak, worship as we worship, and believe as we believe. The true test is whether we defend the conscience of the person whose convictions offend us, trouble us, or contradict our own.

This does not require us to surrender truth. It requires us to trust that truth does not need chains, prisons, or bloodshed to prevail.

The pages that follow may provoke sorrow, anger, and even disbelief. Let them also provoke repentance. Let them remind us that historical honesty is not betrayal. Confession does not weaken the church. It purifies it.

We honor the martyrs of our own tradition most faithfully when we refuse to create martyrs in another.

We defend the gospel most faithfully when we refuse to use methods contrary to the gospel.

We preserve the liberty of our own children most securely when we defend the liberty of those who stand outside our churches.

May this book awaken memory where history has been forgotten, humility where pride has taken root, and courage where silence has allowed injustice to flourish.

May it remind every reader that power is a test of character, that conscience is sacred, and that no church is safe from corruption when it exchanges the cross of Christ for the sword of Caesar.

And may we never forget this solemn truth:

Those who ask for liberty in the day of their weakness must be prepared to grant liberty in the day of their power.

This version is suitable for placement immediately before the main text of the paperback.

Guillermo Santamaria

INTOLERANCE OF PROTESTANTS WHEN IN POWER (Beebe) 1845

INTOLERANCE OF PROTESTANTS WHEN IN POWER


“According to the same author, page 218, a law was made by the court of Basle, October 29, 1538. We extract a part: ‘Whereas, there is a pernicious sect (commonly called Quakers) do take upon them to change and alter the received laudible customs of our nation, and also to destroy the order of the churches, by denying all established forms of worship; for prevention thereof, this court doth order and enact, that every person or persons being convicted to be of the sect of the Quakers, shall be sentenced to be banished upon pain of death.’

It will be observed that these laws are in perfect harmony with the confessions above given, but the principal article found in all these confessions of faith, and in that of Presbyterianism of this country, and which they believe as a positive commandment revealed to them by Almighty God, is (Confession of Faith, pages 218, 219, Ques. 108,) “the disapproving, detesting, opposing all false worship, and according to each one’s place and calling, removing it and all the monuments of idolatry.”

Here is a pretended commandment from Almighty God, directly opposed to civil and religious liberty, hostile to all other denominations, and inimical to the Constitution of the United States, as that Constitution recognizes the rights of all worshiping God according to their own predilections. We hope every friend of human right will weigh it well. It is a commandment which enjoins upon all, from the petty tipstaves in our courts up to the president of the United States, to “remove, according to each one’s place and calling, all false worship, and all the monuments of idolatry.” But this we are told means “moral influence.” We are compelled to say that this meaning is sufficiently refuted by their history, by their penal enactments, by the writings of the chief framers and expounders of their doctrines, who persecuted, and also by the scriptural quotations which they have adduced as confirming the warrant for their inhuman and intolerant persecutions. The seventh chapter of Deuteronomy, referred to particularly, is very expressive on this point. Verse 2 says, “And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou shalt smite them and utterly destroy them: thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them.” Verse 5: “But thus ye shall deal with them, ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire,” &c.

For practical illustrations of these verses, or rather of the whole seventh chapter of Deuteronomy, and of the meaning of “moral influence,” I would merely advert to the cantons of Switzerland, where the Presbyterians banished the Baptists under penalty of death if they returned; in the canton of Zurich, where (see Roussel’s History, Protestantism in Switzerland, vol. iii. p. 99) they decreed that not only Baptists themselves, and those who protected them, should be put to death, but that all non-informants would be condemned as prejurers to imprisonment and exile; and in Berne, where they extirpated the same denomination, beheading the men and drowning the women. Singular illustrations of “removing all false worship,” truly, by “moral influence.” Look, too, in Holland, where they drove the remonstrants out of their churches, plundered them of their property; condemned the Arminians, deprived them of the exercise of their religion, banished their ministers, racked to death the [Lollards?], and quartered the Catholics. View them in Geneva, burning heretics at the stake; in Scotland, putting to death who said or heard mass three times; in England, depriving the Episcopalians of the Book of Common Prayer; in Ireland, coercing the Catholics likewise; and in New England, persecuting the Quakers, stripping men and women half naked, fastening them to cart-tails, dragging them through the surrounding towns, whipping them unmercifully upon their backs, imprisoning their contumacious spirits, confiscating their goods, cutting off their ears, boring their tongues through with red hot irons, and at last hanging them upon an ignominious gallows. Verily these are striking exemplifications of “removing all false worship” by “moral influence.”


Calvin is regarded as the founder of Presbyterianism, although few of that order retain at this day much more than his persecuting spirit, which is shown up in history in connection with acts of the most barbarous cruelty against those who refused to embrace his theory. After plundering Servetus of his property—confining him in a damp prison till “he was almost eaten up with vermin,” denying him an advocate, loading him with every indignity that barbarity could invent, and at last burning him at the stake, he wrote a work entitled “A faithful account of the errors of Michael Servetus, in which it is proved that heretics ought to be restrained with the sword.” In a letter to Marques de Poet, dated September 30th, 1551, he says, “Honor, glory, and riches, shall be the reward of your pains: but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those zealous scoundrels, who stir up the country to revolt against us.—Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus, the spaniard.” (See Robinson’s Researches, p. 340.)

John Knox, the reputed founder of Presbyterianism in Scotland, and who, according to Doct. Heylin, characterized the cold-blooded assassination of Beaton as a “godly act,” laid down these principles:

“You are bound to remove from honor, and punish with death, (if the crime so require,) such as deceive the people, or defraud of that food of their souls, I mean the lively word.” Knox’s History of Reform, p. 10.

“None provoking the people to idolatry ought to be exempted from the punishment of death.”—page 21.

“It is not only lawful to punish to the death such as labor to subvert the true religion; but the magistrates and the people are bound to do so, unless they would provoke the wrath of God against themselves.” p. 25.

“Intimation was made to others as to the abbott of Corraguel, the parson of Sauglin, and such, that they should neither complain to the Queen nor council, but should execute the punishment that God has appointed idolators wherever they should be found.” p. 352.

Edwards, says Neal, when addressing the civil rulers, respecting the commandment, “removing all false worship,” declared, “A connivance at, and suffering without punishment, such false doctrines and disorders, provokes God to send judgments. A toleration doth eclipse the glory of the most excellent reformation, and makes the laws to be the sins of the legislature that countenances them. A magistrate should use coercive power to punish and suppress evil, as appears from the example of Eli.” Again, says Edwards, “Toleration will make the kingdom a chaos, a Babel, another Amsterdam, a Jordon, an

Egypt, a Babylon. Toleration is the groundwork of the devil, his master-piece and chief engine to uphold his tottering kingdom. It is a most compendious, ready, sure way to destroy all religion, lay waste, and bring in all evil. It is a most transcendent, catholic and fundamental evil. As original sin is the fundamental sin, having the seed and spawn of all sins in it, so toleration hath all errors in it and all evils.” [See Verplanck Discoveries, p. 23, 24.

“My judgment,” (says Baxter, another celebrated divine,) “I have always freely made known. I abhor unlimited liberty, or toleration of all.”

As we have before said, we would by no means single out the Presbyterians as the only sect possessing a spirit of intolerance: the same proscriptive and intolerant spirit has always characterized every system of worldly religion, from the days of Cain to the present time, and at this day that spirit is as rife among those Baptists who have drunk in the worldly principles of Protestants and Catholics, as among any other sects, according to the degree of worldliness, human wisdom, human power, and human means, they have incorporated into their religious faith and practice. The poor Old School Baptists would not long escape the prison, the cart-tail scourge, or the stake, if the secular power were in the hands of New School Baptists. Already have some of them recommended the penitentiary, for the correction of Old School Baptists; and others have prayed that we may be laid quietly away, where our “croaking may no longer disturb the onward movement of their car of salvation.”

That there are, or may be many among the Presbyterians, who cherish no such feeling against their religious opponents, as those attributed to their order in the foregoing examples, we will not dispute; and there may be some exceptions also among other worldly sects of religionists: but it is too palpably true to admit of contradiction, that at this day, the various orders of Presbyterians lead the van, in pressing upon our legislatures, that it is their duty to use the sword, in defence of their religious tenets. Who are they at this very time laboring to persuade the legislatures to incorporate religious drilling under legal provisions and penal enactments with our common school instructions? And who are loudest and foremost in asking for, and receiving from our government chartered privileges and exemptions? And who are now receiving from the funds of our state and nation more than three-fourths of all the money appropriated for educational purposes, and thereby enabled to grasp the control of by far the greater number of all the collegiate institutions of our country? Let the Presbyterians themselves answer these interrogatories: Doct. E. S. Ely declared, years ago, that “Two thirds of all the colleges, theological Seminaries, and academical institutions in this country, are under the instruction and control of the Presbyterians.” Another of their divines (Doct. Barton) has said, “When all our colleges are under our control, it will establish our sentiments and influence so that we can manage the civil government as we please.” “They aim,” as Jefferson said truly, “at engrossing the education of the country.” In what way, their own publications will best illustrate. The Sunday School Union have in various reports declared their intention “to force out of circulation” all such elementary books as disagree with their views, to “revise and alter”—“yet keep their titles”—to change the ideas of authors, and to become “dictators to the consciences of thousands of immortal beings!” See Appendix to Doct. Ely’s Sermon, published with remarks by himself in 1828. Also Preface to the catalogue of Sunday School Books by him of 1826. And what is their object in thus dictating to the consciences of thousands of immortal beings? The Appendix to Second Annual Report of Sunday School Union, 1826, page 93, gives the answer: “In ten years, or certainly in twenty, the political power of our country would be in the hands of men whose characters have been formed under the influence of Sabbath Schools.”

In perfect harmony with these declarations, the Presbyterians, aided by other sects, including New School Baptists, have been operating, by manufacturing public opinion, through the agency of Sunday Schools, and other kindred institutions, and in dictating to the consciences of thousands of immortal beings, through the legislatures, until now, their plans of operation are so far matured, and so firmly established, as to almost defy opposition.

In regard to their seizure of our Schools, perhaps they have gone further in this than in any other state. Here they have not only managed to place about two-thirds of all our educational funds at the disposal of the Regents of the University, composed in part of clergymen, and by appropriations made by the legislature to the use of colleges and academies, which, by their own admission, are principally under the control of Presbyterians; but they have got a Normal School established at Albany, under the supervision and control of the Regents and the State Superintendent, to drill those who are to have charge of our common schools,—thus by one sweeping stroke of legislative power, all the educational institutions of our state, and according to their own declarations, they have now the instruments of controlling the political affairs of our state, and of dictating to the consciences of thousands of immortal beings. All that is now wanting for the consummation of their most ambitious desires, is to first have time to prepare a sufficient number of pupils at the Normal School, to monopolize all the common schools of our state, and then persuade the other states of the Union to imitate the example of this state. Let this policy be extended, as powerful efforts are now being made to extend it throughout the U. S., and the entire rising generation must be at the mercy of those conscience dictators; parents are no longer to choose what books shall be read; all books obnoxious to the interests of Sunday Schools, or of the church and state establishment, must be forced out of use. Already has the legislature vested a power in the superintendents to remove books from our school libraries which they may deem objectionable; but this is not all,—the people are not to be allowed to judge for themselves as to the qua

Agents, subservient to the wishes of the Regents, are to decide who shall teach and what shall be taught. “Religion, but not sectarianism,” they say, “must be taught in our schools”—But what kind of religion is there in which all sects agree? It is idle to talk of all agreeing upon religious subjects. But if all the human family was perfectly agreed in their preference for pure Bible religion, that religion could not be taught in schools as a science, for it is purely a revelation.

The following article, which we copy from the New England Puritan, goes to establish the correctness of our position, that no religion can be taught that is not sectarian, and also that the Presbyterian Puritans desire to avail themselves of our schools, for the inculcation of their sectarian tenets. The editor of the Puritan, however, is less reserved in avowing the convictions of his own mind upon the subject, and so far we commend his honesty: if others would speak out as plainly what they mean, we think there would be less danger of misleading the public mind.

OLD SCHOOL MEETING 1845

OLD SCHOOL MEETING

An Old School Baptist meeting will be held with the church at Turin, Lewis Co., N. Y., commencing on Friday, the 27th day of June next, at 11 o’clock, A. M., and will be continued till the following Sunday evening. Ministers and brethren of the Old School Baptist order are respectfully and affectionately invited to attend.

☞ Br. Jewett will please copy this notice into the Monitor.

☞ If the brethren at Westmoreland please they may appoint a meeting at their meeting house, on Wednesday preceding, and we will endeavor to attend.

BROTHER BEEBE:—Will you please to state in the Signs, whether Elder A. Compton, or myself, was the first subscriber for the Signs, and the time, or difference in our becoming subscribers; please to do so, and oblige myself and others. I am still above ground, and yours in unity of faith, I believe.

PETER CULP.

REPLY.—The subscription of brother Compton, according to the subscription books, commenced Vol. vi. No. 1, and that of brother Culp, six months earlier, viz: Vol. v. No. 13.

“The Rev. Mr. Daily, chaplain of the House of Representatives at Washington, returns his thanks to the members in a Card published in the papers of that city, for the courtesy and respect with which he has been treated throughout the session. The people annually pay large sums for praying and preaching to our law-makers in Congress, but we have yet to hear of any great good that has arisen to justify the expenditure.”—Del. co. Republican.

HOW TO DEAL WITH OFFENDING BRETHREN

BROTHER KELLER of Virginia desires our views of Matthew xviii. 15—17, and whether this rule is alike applicable, in cases of a public and private nature. At an early period in the primitive church, the question arose among the disciples, and as they could not exactly agree among themselves, they brought the question for a decision to the Master, viz: “Who is the greatest in the kingdom?” Our Lord did not tell them that Peter, James, or John, or the Pope, or the Bishop, was the greatest; nor did he say directly, as he might with great propriety, that this honor belonged to himself exclusively. He understood them to mean the greatest among the disciples. How many of them had anticipated the palm, we are not informed; but it is natural to conclude that the disputants at least were actuated by ambitious, if not absolutely arrogant feelings; feelings very unbecoming them as the disciples of him that was meek and lowly. “And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them; and said, Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”—What a lesson for their instruction! What a reproof for their ambition, and what an example for their guide! “Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Strictly speaking, Christ is the only one that has ever humbled himself in the manner described; others have been truly humbled under his mighty hand, and Christ is beyond all dispute greatest in the kingdom; the more childlike, therefore, his disciples are, the more alike Jesus.

With this preliminary instruction premised, our Lord proceeded to admonish the disciples of the unavoidable occurrence of offences; and how they should deport themselves when such offences should come. Although such offenders as cannot be reclaimed in a gospel manner are to be expelled, however conspicuous their standing, or important their station; although they may be to the church as the right eye, or the right hand is to the body, we are not to indulge in carnal reasoning, nor suffer any thing to be done by partiality.—With all the severity which the order of the house of God demands, gentleness, meekness, and a desire to reclaim an erring brother, is to mark the course of the disciples one towards the other.—“This lesson is set home by the most admirable argument contained in the scriptures: “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost,” and this declaration is beautifully illustrated by the man that had an hundred sheep, of which one is lost; he goeth into the mountain to seek the errant sheep, and when he has found it he rejoiceth, over its restoration more than over those which had not strayed. Now is this Christian-like?—Then it is the proper course for christians to pursue when any have strayed from the footsteps of the flock.

“Moreover,” Besides these general lessons of instruction, which are always to be observed by the saints; if thy brother shall trespass against thee,” We cannot understand this to mean any particular kind of trespass, as to smite thee, rob thee, slander thee, or even that the trespass shall be against thee personally; but if thy brother shall trespass, or transgress the laws of Christ, so as to effect thy fellowship towards him, then the duty becomes indispensable to apply the instructions which follow: “You that are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness.” It is not said, if thy brother trespass against thee privately, then tell him his fault between thee & him alone, nor is it said if he trespass against thee publicly; but, if he trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone. Observe the figure laid down—one sheep has gone astray. It is sufficient that he has gone from the ninety-nine—no matter whether he went off secretly or openly, he has gone and must be looked up. As the Son of man came to save that which was lost, we are to be Christ-like, and go in pursuit of the stray brother, with a becoming desire to render to him a real service, in restoring him to his place.

We are aware of some of the objections to the application of this rule to cases of open or public transgression; and there are also some arguments used against its application to offences of a strictly private character. A case is supposed: A brother has been seen and heard in open court, to curse and swear, and deny that he has any knowledge of Jesus Christ. This offence was open and before the world, in presence of the enemies of the cross of Christ; now what is to be done in this case? Certainly an individual brother, although he might convince the offender of his error, has not the power to exhonorate the offender from his responsibility to satisfy every member of the church; but still, he is a stray sheep, and should be sought for. Now, to follow the direction and rule under consideration, how shall he proceed? To us it appears that this should be the course: My brother, I am grieved with your conduct; you have inflicted a deep wound upon your brethren in denying our dear Lord and Master, and in the profane language which you used on the occasion: do you still persist in that course, or are you convinced of your error, and ready to make acknowledgements of your wrongs? Now suppose the brother says as David said to Nathan, “I have sinned,” and manifests the same contrition that David did; what will the laboring brother require to heal the wound? Will he not say, I rejoice that God has given you repentance for the wrong, and filled your heart with Godly sorrow for your transgression; and if the matter were only known to myself, here the difficulty should end; but you know, my brother, that this offence was committed openly and has come or must come to the ears of all your brethren; they are or will be as sensibly grieved as I have been—now do you not see the importance of leaving here thy gift before the altar, and going immediately to be reconciled to the brethren—go confess to them as you have now to me, and they will rejoice to receive you; yea, they will rejoice more over you than over ninety-nine just persons that need no repentance. If this offending brother’s contrition be genuine, will he hesitate one moment? Will he not rather hasten to acknowledge his fault, and do all in his power to remove the stumbling block which he has been the unhappy occasion of?—Would not such a course be in the spirit of the instruction of this eighteenth chapter of Matthew, and much better calculated to restore the offender (if he be a subject of grace) than to simply cite him to be and appear before the church, and make satisfaction to the church for offences of a public nature? Where a real disposition exists to restore a wandering brother in the spirit of meekness, there is seldom any difficulty in understanding the mode of procedure directed. But when a difficulty occurs (as, alas! too many have,) where, instead of the spirit being grieved, the old man is mad, and seeks occasion to be avenged, or to retaliate, it is astonishing how very exact he can be in requiring his offending or accused brother to pay the utmost farthing. How keen the eye to detect the difference between a public or a private offence! If public, he says, I will make it still more public—I will let the world see how much worse that brother is than I am. I will not go and labor to reclaim him; it is his duty to come before the church and confess, and if he should be excluded it will serve him right. Such a person will plead eloquently for scripture rule, but remain stupidly inconsiderate of the application of that rule to his own case. We would by no means be understood that it is unimportant that christians should be, at all times and under all circumstances, governed strictly by the scriptures of the New Testament; but we do object to that selfish construction of the word, which would lead a brother to pursue a fellow member out of the church, without laboring to reclaim him in the spirit of the directions laid down by our Lord in the chapter under consideration.

Again—Instances have not been lacking where an individual has been conscious that he had given just cause for complaint, but, instead of being melted down with contrition for his wrong, he coolly sets about making his defence. In his turn he becomes amazingly tenacious for an exact conformity to certain instructions of the scriptures; or rather for his version of them. Now, says he, if I have offended, let my brethren pursue the course laid down in the 18th of Matthew, or I will give them no satisfaction; I’ll let them know that I know something about church discipline, and if I have offended my brother, he is required to come and tell me my fault, &c.; let him therefore come to me if he wants any thing. Is there a particle of gospel exercise manifested in this sort of contending for Bible rule, while such scripture as requires the accused to go and be reconciled to his brother is altogether unheeded?

We have heard this argument also used in some cases: If a brother should inflict an injury upon a brother in private, so that the sufferer has not the means to prove his charge; that he is bound to bear the grief without pursuing the course of labor enjoined in this chapter, because that he cannot establish every word by two or three witnesses.

But we trust this mode of reasoning does not prevail very extensively. The rule makes all necessary provision for instances. My brother offends me privately—the facts of the case are known to none but ourselves. I go and tell him his fault as directed, between him and me—he will not hear me. I then take what is called the second step of labor—taking one or two brethren—we visit him; now before these brethren he denies all the facts in the case; I affirm and he denies; and if I proceed to tell it to the church, his word is supposed to be as good as mine, and the church, it is thought, cannot decide upon the just merits of the case for want of clearer testimony.

But let it be remembered, I am to go in obedience to the command of Christ; in the Spirit of Christ, and of course trusting the issue to him. (If I perish, I perish,) and in the second step of the labor, also trusting in God, I cannot be without sufficient witness. I have the very best of witness. My one or two brethren and myself make up the number of two or three, and being assembled to labor with an offending brother in obedience to Christ, we are together in his name, and we have the assurance that he is in our midst.—This assurance is given in the same chapter and in the same connection with the rule, and Jesus says, Every word shall be established, and he will make good the pledge, so that when the matter is brought before the church, if the directions of Christ have been truly observed there is no possibility of failure in regard to the issue.

Before we close our remarks, we wish to say, that although we fully believe this rule is always binding on individuals, requiring them thus to proceed in all cases, whether public or private; yet we do not believe that the church, in her church capacity, is always bound to see that private labor has been taken, before she can consistently exercise that authority which is vested in her for dealing with transgressors. Cases may occur in open church meeting, requiring the immediate reproof of the church, before all, that others may fear, &c. But in all cases where a charge is brought before the church against a member, by an individual member, we do believe that it is the duty of the church, before acting upon the charge, to see that the first and second steps of gospel labor have been duly taken according to the rule.

Brother E. Morehead, of Tennessee, desires our views on Job xv. 15, viz:—“Behold he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.”—However correct or incorrect the declarations of this text may be, we certainly are not warranted to receive the testimony as a part of divine revelation, as that which is written by direct inspiration of God. The words were spoken by Eliphaz the Temanite, and addressed to Job, among other words which were not approved by God; for the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends; for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right as my servant Job hath.” Job xlii. 7. Still, altho’ Eliphaz and his two friends were uninspired, and evidently mistook the case of Job, we must regard much of what they said as truth because of its harmony with the inspired word. When Eliphaz told Job that an acquaintance with God would enable him to lay up the gold of Ophir as the stones of the brook, he spoke not according to the general experience of those who know the Lord, for they are generally poor and lay up but very little gold; but so in this text, the declaration that God putteth no trust in his saints is in perfect harmony with every expression of divine revelation which God has been pleased to make of himself. It is the privilege of all his saints to trust in God, and they shall be as Mount Zion, which cannot be moved; but we cannot conceive that God puts his trust in his saints; he relies alone upon himself, and is all-sufficient, independent, and supports all things.

That the heavens are not clean in his sight depends on what heavens are alluded to. If God’s throne be intended, it is clean and from it proceeds a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal. (Rev. xxii. 1.) The church viewed in her connection with Christ, washed in his blood, is clean, and God will behold no spot in her. But if the declaration be applied to the heavens which are reserved to fire, which are to pass away, the words are true. Within the new Heavens and the new earth dwelleth righteousness.