APPEAL TO THE CHURCH.
"_And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy
and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the
clean._" Ezekiel xliv, 23.
On moral and religious questions compromise is treason to the right.
Lafayette's witty and just illustration is well applied. He supposes two
men to get into an altercation in regard to a fact in arithmetic. "Twice
two is four," says the one, stoutly. "No", replies the other, "twice two
is six." Both are immovable, and the dispute waxes warm. A third person
approaches, and lays a hand gently upon each. "Gentlemen, reason is not
infallible. The wisest men are sometimes in error. We are all prone to
rush to extremes. You, my friend, affirm that twice two is four. You,
who are equally my friend, affirm that twice two is six. Compromise,
gentlemen, compromise. Meet each other half way. Agree to say,
hereafter, that twice two is five."
Men are not lacking who, even in considering points of morals and
religion, are ready to confess that really, after all, so far at least
as their present information extends, twice two is somewhere about five.
Nay, in their haste to meet what they style the demands of the age, some
are ready to compromise at five and ninety-nine hundredths. And thus,
all the way from what St. John calls "the camp of the saints and the
beloved city" down to the place where Gog and Magog are gathering their
hosts for battle, men are pitching their flimsy tents and raising their
equivocal banners. It is a lamentable fact that among the chief
obstacles to the progress of the Gospel we are compelled to count bodies
that claim to belong to the Lord Jesus Christ, and yet have neither the
heart to preach his doctrines nor the courage to proclaim his law. In
all ages there have been sects of nominal Christians, who form a part of
the Church of Christ in the same sense that the outside scales of a
shell-bark hickory are a part of the tree, and who are ever ready to
compromise with the world and tolerate all fashionable follies. Worldly
men would manage the affairs of a Church in the same manner that they
would conduct a political campaign. The argument is, that in order to be
popular, and grow rapidly in numbers and in wealth, the Church must lay
as few restrictions as possible upon candidates for admission, and as
seldom as possible come into collision with the pleasures and the
passions of the multitude.
Mr. Bright, in a recent speech in the British Parliament on the
disestablishment of the Irish Church, gives, in a sentence or two, a
correct description of this policy which we have here mentioned:
"The Right Honorable gentleman, the member from Bucks, argued very much
in favor of the Established Church on the ground that there ought to be
some place into which people can get who would not readily be admitted
any where else. The fact is, what the Right Honorable gentleman wants is
this: that we shall have an established Church which has no discipline,
and that any one who will live up to what may be called a gentlemanly
conformity to it may pass through the world as a very satisfactory sort
of Christian."
But the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. This mercenary
policy fails by the very measures to which it resorts. When the wicked
see no distinction between the Church and the world they cease to
respect the Church. Even the hypocrite finds his occupation gone when a
profession of religion means nothing, just as the counterfeiter stops
work when the bank fails and its notes are no longer current. Thus the
cunning of men overleaps itself. On the other hand, the Church that
boldly joins issue with sin wins moral power with every blow, and
secures the respect even of the enemy. Thus they who feebly seek to save
their lives lose them, while those who are ready to lose life for
Christ's sake and the Gospel's find it.
The principle stated is of infinite importance, and we must neither
forget it nor distrust it for an hour. All who fear God will confess
that we are not to withhold the truth nor compromise with sin, even if
the multitude desert our altars to crowd where the cross is lighter or
its offense has wholly ceased. But is it true that worldly craft and
policy will fail even as a policy? Let another question answer this.
Other things being equal among rival denominations, have not the purest
in doctrine and the strictest in morals always been the most successful?
Churches grow weak by lowering the standard of morals. When there is no
discoverable difference between the Church and the world, the Church is
no longer loved, or venerated, or believed. It becomes powerless to pull
down the strongholds of sin; it can no more stir the heart, nor rouse
the conscience, nor reach the mysterious depths of our nature; it ceases
to meet the religious wants of those whose hearts God has touched, and
men turn away unsatisfied from its shallow waters. The scorner will be
loud in his denunciations of religionists whose vows are but the breath
of the moment, and whose professions mean nothing. Even the soul
convinced of guilt and danger will be afraid to trust to the guidance of
a Church which has in it so little of the divine, so little of the power
of God.
Methodism took at the beginning, and has held to this day, what some
might regard as extreme positions on the subject of slavery, worldly
amusements, and the drinking customs of the times. What is the verdict
of history? Have we damaged ourselves by our fidelity to the right? Some
timid, half-convicted people have doubtless been repelled from our
communion by the strictness of Methodist discipline and the boldness
with which we have assaulted the wrong, but who believes that the Church
would have grown more rapidly by compromise and cowardice? Who believes
that it would be wise, even according to the wisdom of this world, to
compromise with evil now? Zion is not "lengthening her cords and
strengthening her stakes" in a Scriptural manner when she "stretches the
curtains of her tent" to shelter dancing, card-playing, and wine-bibbing
converts. If these should come in crowds, offering on these conditions
to join us, we could not receive them. To do so would be to act as madly
as would the general who, in an enemy's country, commands his soldiers
to throw away their arms, call in the sentinels, and level the
intrenchments, in order to gain a few timid recruits who would not wear
the uniform an hour if they thought that it meant war.
Nor is our argument disproved by the history of modern ecclesiastical
organizations which have been less rigid than our own Church. In an
intelligent community, where the Bible is read, their laxity is always
against them. And in those very denominations the really pious, whose
influence and example are the very salt of the body, to preserve it from
putrefaction, and without whom it would hardly be recognized as a
religious body at all, do not join in these questionable practices
themselves, nor do they advocate them in others.
The way in which the world reasons about a facile Church is well
illustrated by a conversation which actually took place not long ago
between a sort of a minister and a shrewd, irreligious rich man, whom he
wished to get in his little fold.
"Mr. B----," said the clergyman, "almost all your family have joined the
Church, and I think it is about time for you to do the same."
"O, I am not fit to join the Church. I am not at all pious, you know,"
was the reply.
"But", said the minister, "you are aware that we are not very strict.
Our Church does not require as much as some others."
"But I am not right," said Mr. B----. "I sometimes get angry and swear,
and that will not do for a member of the Church."
"O, well," answered the minister, "you do not mean any harm by it, do
you? That need not hinder."
"But, parson, that is not all. I am in business. I trade horses, for
instance, and make the best bargain I can; and some people say that I
tell lies in making my bargains."
"O, well," said the parson, "it is right for us to take care of our
interests. That need not hinder you."
"Now, look here, parson," said our friend, somewhat excited, "what good
will it do me to join your Church if I need not be any thing but what I
am? I am not a Christian now, I know; but if I ever join the Church, I
mean to be one."
Even the world, unsaved, dim in vision, and hard in heart, has learned
enough of the truth to despise those who are ready to sacrifice religion
for the sake of numbers, and the pecuniary and social strength which
numbers bring. If the Methodist Episcopal Church should abandon her
traditions, and retreat from her present high position in morals, her
apostasy would be attended by a fearful loss of religious power. If such
an exhortation were allowable, I would call on all upon whom devolves
the oversight of the Church to stand firm for the strict morals of
Methodism. There is always a difficulty in maintaining Scriptural
discipline. To enforce it is often painful to the pastor. It sometimes
disturbs the membership and the community, interrupting friendly
intercourse and exciting evil passions; nevertheless, we can not give up
Church order. The pressure can be escaped only by a complete abandonment
of discipline. Concessions and compromises merely transfer the battle to
another point, where we must again fight, our forces demoralized by
defeat and the enemy emboldened by victory.
If there is any place which we can hold against the enemy, any line
where we can muster our forces and repel invasion, it is on the
frontier. The king who fails to meet his foes the moment they set foot
within his territory is already conquered. Drawing the line, and taking
her stand in favor of total abstinence from all that intoxicates, the
Methodist Episcopal Church has kept herself pure from the sin and shame
of intemperance, and yet not one in ten thousand of her members is ever
arraigned for violation of the stringent rule. Could the Church tolerate
what is called "moderate drinking" without being compelled to deal with
multitudes whom moderate drinking had led into the depths of
drunkenness? For the same reason it is easier to keep our young people
from objectionable diversions than to discipline them for the grosser
inconsistencies into which indulgence would speedily lead them.
Will it be said that if we are so rigid our young people will leave us
and join other communions? Be it so, if it must. They who are in haste
to sell their membership in the Church for so poor and small a mess of
pottage can do us little good if they remain. _They go out from us
because they are not of us._ A thousand dancing, wine-bibbing,
card-playing, theater-going Church members will not furnish one worthy
candidate for the Christian ministry, not one devoted class-leader, not
one pious man or woman ready for the spiritual work of the Church of
God. If they leave us in order to seek a more congenial home, we can
better afford to lose than to keep them. The rubbing out of minus
quantities increases the sum total. And if any other Church, so called,
imagine that they can make their swarm the stronger by hiving our
drones, they are certainly welcome to try the experiment. If there be a
noble emulation that may justly prompt us to "labor more abundantly"
than others, and excel them if we may, in Gospel successes, we need not
fear the rivalry of any fashionable, worldly, easy-going denomination.
Such as these will never "take our crown." Pure doctrine, a faithful
ministry, unwavering adherence to the Divine law of morals, a devoted,
holy, earnest laity, alone will win the prize.
But let us not flatter ourselves with the idea of a vantage-ground
which no one else has the wisdom to see nor the grace to occupy. No low
degree of morality will suffice to place us at the head of the
sacramental host, or even give us a position among the leaders. Others
as well as ourselves see the beauty of holiness, and are striving to put
on the robe "white and clean" which is "the righteousness of saints."
Almost every branch of the Church of Christ has taken the alarm, and, by
its leading ministers or resolutions passed in ecclesiastical councils,
has spoken emphatic words of warning. It would be easy to fill scores of
pages with these utterances, coming from Churches differing widely in
doctrine and in usage. A few extracts, with the sources whence they
emanate, will show us the sentiments and convictions of the general
Church in our whole land.
The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church thus spoke half a
century ago:
"On the fashionable though, as we believe, dangerous amusements of
theatrical exhibitions and dancing, we deem it necessary to make a few
observations. The theater we have always considered as a school of
immorality.... With respect to dancing, we think it necessary to observe
that however plausible it may appear to some, it is perhaps not the less
dangerous on account of that plausibility.... Let it once be introduced
and it is difficult to give it limits. It steals away precious time,
dissipates religious impressions, and hardens the heart."
The General Assembly of 1865 reaffirmed the action of the session of
1818, condemned card-playing--to which attention had been called by a
memorial--and "affectionately exhorted all the members of the Church" to
avoid "all recreations and amusements which are calculated to impair
spirituality, lessen Christian influence, or bring discredit upon them
in their profession as members of a Christian Church."
Bishop M'Ilvaine, of the Protestant Episcopal Church, thus declares his
judgment on the same subject:
"Let me now turn to two objects, in which there is no difficulty of
discrimination--the theater and the dance. The only line I would draw in
regard to these is that of entire exclusion. And yet, my brethren, I am
well aware how easy it is for the imagination to array both of these in
such an abstract and elementary simplicity, so divested of all that
gives them their universal character and relish, that no harm could be
detected in either. And the same precisely can be easily done with the
card-table and horse-race."
Bishop Mead, also of the Protestant Episcopal Church, thus condemns
dancing:
"As an amusement, seeing that it is a perversion of an ancient
religious exercise, and has ever been discouraged by the sober-minded
and pious of all nations, on account of its evil tendencies and
accompaniments, we ought conscientiously to inquire whether its great
liability to abuse, and its many acknowledged abuses, should not make us
frown upon it _in all its forms_. I will briefly allude to some of the
objections to it. When taught to the young at an early age, it is
attended with an expense of time and money which might be far better
employed. It promotes the love of dress and pleasure, to which the young
are already too prone; it tempts to vanity and love of display; it
induces a strong desire to enter on the amusements of the world at an
early period, in order to exhibit the accomplishments thus acquired, and
to enjoy a pleasure for which a taste has been formed; it leads the
young ones exactly into an opposite direction to that pointed out in the
Word of God."
In their Episcopal Address of 1867, the Bishops of the Methodist
Episcopal Church South thus speak:
"This is no time to abate our testimony against worldliness in all its
forms. Our Church has never faltered in its teaching or modified its
tone in relation to dancing, theaters, the manufacture and sale of
ardent spirits, drunkenness, revelings, and such like, as demoralizing
and fatal to godliness. Now that we are threatened with these evils
coming in like a flood, we renew our warning."
In 1866 the Young Men's Christian Association held a General Convention
in Albany, New York. Delegates were present from all parts of the United
States and the British Provinces. The question of amusements was
carefully considered, and the conclusion reached was set forth in a
formal resolution, thus:
"That we bear our energetic testimony against dancing, card and
billiard-playing, as so distinctively worldly in their associations, and
unspiritual in their influences, as to be utterly inconsistent with our
profession as the disciples of Christ."
And last of all, but not least in the wisdom of the sentiments uttered,
nor in the faithfulness of its warnings, we cite the Pastoral Letter of
the Provincial Council of Baltimore, the voice of the Bishops of the
Roman Catholic Church. It is dated May, 1869:
"The dangerous amusements, prominent among the evils we have to
deplore, and which is an evidence of the growing licentiousness of the
times, may be reckoned a morbid taste for indecent publications, and the
frequency of immoral or positively obscene theatrical performances. No
entertainments seem sufficient to satisfy the fast degenerating spirit
of the age unless they be highly sensational, and calculated to gratify
the most prurient appetites. We can hardly say who deserve a stronger
condemnation, the actors who pander to the most vitiated tastes, or the
audiences who encourage, by their presence, and applaud these grossly
indelicate exhibitions. Both actors and spectators appear to vie with
each in their rapid march down the slippery path of sin. We deem it
particularly our solemn duty to renew our warning against the modern
fashionable dances, commonly called 'German,' or round dances, which are
becoming more and more the occasions of sin. These practices are so much
the more dangerous as most persons seem to look upon them as harmless,
and indulge in them without any apparent remorse of conscience. But
Divine revelation, the wisdom of antiquity, the light of reason and of
experience, all concur in proclaiming that this kind of entertainments
can not be indulged in by any virtuous persons, unless they be more than
human, without detriment to their souls, or even be present to take part
in such amusements, where the eye is dazzled by an array of fascinating
objects, where the senses are captivated by enchanting music, and the
heart is swayed to and fro amid the surrounding gayety and excitement."
With these facts, arguments, appeals, and testimonies we leave the
subject to the solemn consideration of the reader, believing that the
position which we have taken is rational, Scriptural, and safe, "by
manifestation of the truth commending" itself "to every man's conscience
in the sight of God."
"FINALLY, BRETHREN, WHATSOEVER THINGS ARE TRUE, WHATSOEVER THINGS ARE
HONEST, WHATSOEVER THINGS ARE JUST, WHATSOEVER THINGS ARE PURE,
WHATSOEVER THINGS ARE LOVELY, WHATSOEVER THINGS ARE OF GOOD REPORT; IF
THERE BE ANY VIRTUE AND IF THERE BE ANY PRAISE, THINK ON THESE THINGS."
[Illustration: decorative]
* * * * *
Transcriber's Notes:
Maintained original spelling, hyphenation and punctuation.
Obvious printer errors have been corrected.