Much as has been said upon the evils of sectarianism, within the last
forty or fifty years, it is still true, that no one has given the
subject too high a coloring. Its evils are equal to the most brilliant
description we have had. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive how any
one could speak, in too strong terms, of this one evil; yet, the sin of
partyism, like many other sins of these times, is so fashionable and
popular, that it is scarcely seen to be a sin at all. It is true, all
seem to look upon it as a sin, for a man to create partyism and strife
in the party to which he belongs, or any other party. But, to keep up
the parties now in existence, and defend the peculiarities upon which
they are predicated, and from which they receive their very existence,
is considered _serving God_. Now, if it can be considered service to
the Lord, to build up and keep up that old mother and mistress of all
heresy, the Roman Catholic Church, then, why was not the very mystery
of iniquity, already working in John’s day, doing service to God, in
originating that grand establishment of sin and iniquity? Surely, it is
giving as much glory to God to set on foot a great or a small religious
scheme, as to keep it in motion after it is once started.
If it is doing the will of God to build up and sustain the Episcopalian
Church now; surely, he was doing the will of God who originated
it. This, no one will doubt. The same is true of the Lutheran, the
Presbyterian, the Methodist Episcopal and all the indescribable parties
which have descended from them. If it is service to the Lord now, to
build them up, it was equally as great service to him to originate
them. It is a fact, too, that all these parties honor their originators
as the greatest and best men the world has had.
Now, how much should the opinions of these parties be considered worth?
or, how much are the most earnest and solemn decisions they ever made,
to be regarded? They would consider us highly uncharitable, if we did
not regard these decisions as most solemnly true. Well, if the Roman
Catholic Church ever made an earnest, an authoritative decision, in the
world, it was when she declared Martin Luther a heretic. And what man,
since his day, has broken off from an old party and established a new
one, without most earnestly and solemnly being declared a heretic? No
such man can be mentioned. The old party always decides that a new one,
that breaks off from it, is a heresy. In this way, all the parties now
in existence, have been decided _heresies_, and the leaders in them
_heretics_. Yet, these _heresies_, as they have styled them, headed
by those who have been decided _heretics_, have grown up, and are now
called “_evangelical churches_.” How is all this? If the Lord never
authorized them to be started, did he authorize their perpetuation?
And if he did authorize them to be started, were not the old parties
awfully wicked in condemning them, when they were doing the will of the
Lord?
It, then, presents a fearful picture—turn the matter which way you
may. If the parties, passing sentences, were wicked, and opposing the
will of God, then are almost all wicked and sinful—for all the older
and more popular, have passed such sentences. But if those upon whom
sentence has been passed, are sinful, and under condemnation, then
there are but few good, for such sentences have been passed upon nearly
all. Such is the dilemma, in which partyism has involved the religious
world.
If ever the adversary of man discovered an effectual stratagem, by
means of which to defeat all piety, and do execution in opposing the
faith of God’s elect, it was when he succeeded in sowing the seeds of
dissension in the church of God. Our Lord’s words show that he had this
before his mind, when he uttered the solemn prayer, John xvii. 20; “I
pray not for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me
through their word; that they may all be one, as thou, Father, art in
me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that _the world may
believe that thou hast sent me_.” Here it is clearly implied, that if
those who believe, through the word, were _one_, the tendency would be
to induce the world to believe. Nor is this any more clearly implied
than the opposite, viz: that the lack of union among believers, leads
to unbelief. How vain and imaginative the thought, that the existing
parties of our times, will ever be instrumental in the hand of God, in
converting the world, when the structure of their own organization, in
itself, has a continual tendency to infidelity. Are we told that such
is an ungenerous charge? Well, who can avoid it? The language of the
Lord, just quoted, clearly implies that the faith of the world depends
on the unity of believers; and we all admit, that the world cannot be
converted without faith, for “without faith it is impossible to please
God; for they that would come to him must believe that he is, and
that he is a rewarder of them who diligently seek him.” The matter is
too clear to be misunderstood. The Lord saw that the world would not
believe, till his people were _one_; hence, he prayed that they might
be one, _that the world might believe_.
Need we pray for the conversion of the world? need we send missionaries
to convince the pagan nations? need we print and circulate bibles? need
we build churches, and preach with the zeal of apostles, in all the
length and breadth of the land? I say, need we do all this, thinking
to convert the world, while we maintain our own unhallowed divisions
among believers? And, if we do, what evidence have we that the object
we have in view will ever be attained? Not the least in the world; for
so long as the Lord prays that we may _be one_—that the _world may
believe_—we need not expect the world to believe, while we are _not
one_.
It is true, we may convince, convert and save some, under the most
disadvantageous circumstances; but what is this, compared with the
_world believing_ or being converted? It is only a drop to the ocean.
Why not, then, come back to this great obstacle, and remove it, that
the conquests of righteousness and grace may extend over the earth?
It is confessed by all, in our time, that the Lord’s people are a
spiritual people, and if any have not the Spirit of Christ, they are
none of his. All are aware, too, that carnality is the opposite of
spirituality. What, then, is an evidence of carnality? I. Cor. iii. 3,
Paul asserts: “For ye are carnal.” What reason does he give for this
assertion? “For,” says he, “whereas there is among you _envying_, and
_strife_, and _divisions_; are ye not _carnal_, and walk as men?” He
here alludes to their divisions, as an evidence of their carnality, or
want of spirituality. But he argues the case further, as follows: “For
while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not
carnal?” He here continues the charge, that their following different
leaders is an evidence of their carnality. It should be kept in mind,
too, that the divisions among the Corinthians were of the mildest form.
If they could not be justified by the apostle, none since his time
could be, for none less offensive have ever existed. If the Corinthian
church, then, deserved the charge of carnality, as they certainly did,
how will the parties of our times escape the same charge?
Now, let reason ask—let righteousness ask—let every thing great and
good ask: Can the believers now on earth, sincerely, devoutly and
fervently, pray and labor for the conversion of the world, to the Lord
Jesus, in this state of carnality? It is alleged that _carnality_, or
the absence of the Spirit of God in the hearts of believers, is not the
cause of division? Then who are they that _separate themselves_? Let
the Scripture answer: “These be they who separate themselves, _sensual,
having not the Spirit_.” There is no higher nor surer evidence of
sensuality, carnality, and the absence of the Spirit of the Lord, than
division among the professed followers of Christ.
While this evil exists among the believers, can we pray in faith for
the conversion of the world? Can carnal professors, in the absence of
the Spirit of the Lord, without a sufficiency of the love of Christ,
to fellowship but a small portion of those for whom Christ died,
and who profess to love and serve him, hope that God will make them
instrumental in converting the world? No, we need not flatter ourselves
with the fond conceit, that anything like general saving influence will
ever be felt by the world, until those for whom Jesus prayed are _one_.
The meek and lowly Spirit of the Lord is displaced by the proud and
fierce spirit of the partisan. The lovely and inviting character of the
first church has disappeared and in its stead we have the inducements
of gorgeous worldly and fleshly establishments. In the place of even
being truly turned from sin to righteousness—from the power of Satan
to God—we have conversions that merely consist in opposing all creeds
and parties but the one into which the converts happen to fall, while
they frequently love the Lord no better than before their conversion.
In the place of that universal philanthropy exhibited by our Lord’s
death, for the whole world, such converts are merely filled with party
bigotry, which _dislikes_—yes, even _hates_—every body not of the
“same faith and order.” Under the influence of such religion, people
live near each other, see each other every day—yet associate not, nor
allow their children to associate, nor even worship the Lord their God
in the same house. And why this careful separation? They differ in
faith! What difference? Well, they cannot tell exactly, but the learned
_doctor_ who sermonizes for them, knows the difference. Go to him, and
he will explain it to you. This is no extreme case. Nine-tenths of the
members of churches cannot tell the difference between their own church
and another. Yet, it is so great, that they cannot fellowship the other.