SECTARIANISM.
M
MUCHas 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 consideredserving 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 decidedheresies, and the leaders in themheretics. Yet, theseheresies, as they have styled them, headed by those who have been decidedheretics, 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; thatthe world may believe that thou hast sent me.” Here it is clearly implied, that if those who believe, through the word, wereone, 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 theLord, 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 wereone; 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 maybe one—that theworld may believe—we need not expect the world to believe, while we arenot one.
It is true, we may convince, convert and save some, under the most disadvantageous circumstances; but what is this, compared with theworld believingor 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 ofspirituality. 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 youenvying, andstrife, anddivisions; are ye notcarnal, 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 thatcarnality, or the absence of the Spirit of God in the hearts of believers, is not the cause of division? Then who are they thatseparate 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 areone. 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, whichdislikes—yes, evenhates—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 learneddoctorwho sermonizes for them, knows the difference. Go to him, andhe 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.