Can We Divide?

In all large religious bodies periods of unusual excitement must come. That in many instances they are attended with good, in many with evil, it would be idle to deny. Certainly they are not all beneficial; certainly they are not all bad. It would not therefore be just either to condemn them indiscriminantly, or to approve them indiscriminantly. That they will come, we may accept as a settled fact. What effect, then, do they have, what lesson do they teach, and how shall they be managed?

One effect which they certainly have, is to create alarm. This may be a benefit, as it certainly is, where it simply leads to vigilance and a closer adherence to the word of God. It may be an evil, and is so, or rather it may lead to evil, where it leads to predictions of division among the children of God. True, this may be an abuse of these periods of excitement; still we know that they lead to such results, whether from abuse or not. These predictions are unlovely things, and are justifiable only in cases of extreme danger. Brethren should be more than cautious how they indulge the propensity thus to predict. The great fear is that the prediction arises too often, not from simple fear of division, but in fact from a desire for it. Hence the necessity of thinking well before such a thought is allowed to find utterance.

It is not extremely rare, in the present day, to read expressions from brethren which imply, or seem to imply, a belief on their part, that we as a people may one day become divided. We must certainly regard such expressions as hasty utterances. Indeed, we do not believe that there is the semblance of adequate ground on which to base them.

On what principle, let me ask, is the predicted division to take place? For there are principles which underlie and control divisions as real and determinate as those which underlie and control unions. A division has its cause, and proceeds in its own appropriate way, as much so as any other event of time. From what cause, then, can we as a people divide? I am free to confess I see none. But suppose we were to divide. What then? Would the two halves of the divided body both be equally legitimate? The thing is impossible. The adhering half would still be the body of Christ; the separating half would be a division proper, or a sect, and no part of the church. That is, this would be the case, provided the division were permanent and incurable. Certainly a temporary estrangement of brethren might take place, which would not deserve to be called a division in the sense [330] in which I am now using that word. Of such an estrangement I am not speaking; I am speaking of those deep rents in the church, which are certainly possible, but which end only in one of the rent-off parts becoming an apostasy. But this is not properly speaking a division of the church. It is a separation from it, not a division of it. A division of the church, were such a thing possible, would be such a rent in it as would leave each of the halves still halves of the church. But the Church of Christ in halves, or a divided body of Christ, is impossible. The moment the church is so divided the one part becomes an apostasy, the other remains the church. Hence we at once settle in the negative, the question: Is the church divisible? Still, waiving all dispute as to the character of the parts, is not a rent in our body possible? I certainly think it would be going too far, in the light of the New Testament and of the history of the past, to pronounce such an event wholly impossible. Still, though I should be unwilling to go this far, yet I am more than willing to pronounce it improbable in the very last degree. For how, let me repeat, is such division to be effected, or from what cause is it to spring? When we soberly consider this question, an answer to it is not easily found.

Suppose the division to have its origin in some doctrinal question. In what light, then, should it be viewed, and how disposed of? Of course, in that case the first question raised would be: Is the doctrine clearly taught in the word of God. If clearly taught in the word of God, the case admits of a very simple solution. The party rejecting the doctrine would stand, on that ground, and for that reason alone, condemned; while the party accepting, would have to be held as no party, but as the church. But suppose the doctrine not to be clearly taught, or suppose it to admit of a reasonable doubt whether it is taught or not, how, then, should we proceed? In that case the difference should be regarded as a difference of opinion, and hence should be made no test of soundness in the faith, or of fellowship. Here, if brethren were possessed of even the most ordinary share of love, the difference would either permanently rest or permanently end. But if one of the differing parties should persist in an effort to force its opinion on the other, or should dogmatically require subscription thereto, or should make it any such test as has just been named, then such party would have to be regarded as having become heretical, and would have to be repudiated. The other party would have to be held as the church.

To illustrate what I mean: it is held to be doubtful whether a Christian man can go to war according to the New Testament. For myself I am candid to think he can not. But others, let me allow, with equal candor think differently. Suppose, now, we as a people, were equally divided on the point. Neither party could certainly force the other to accept its view. The difference should be held as a [331] difference of opinion, and should hence be made a matter of forbearance. But should either party attempt to compel the other to accept its view, and in case of failure should separate, I should not hesitate to regard the separating party as a faction, and hence as condemned in the New Testament.

But suppose the point about which the difference existed to be clearly not taught in the word of God, and that this was by all admitted. For example, many brethren think we may, with perfect innocence, if we choose, have missionary societies; others think we may not. About such societies the New Testament says nothing. This all admit. How now shall we proceed in this case? Much, certainly, as in the one just instanced. Neither party should attempt to force the other to accept its view; and with us there is not even the remotest possibility that such will ever be the case. But should any man, or set of men, rise up among us and attempt to make missionary societies a test of fellowship, and should he, in case of failure, separate from us, his act would be regarded as the act of a factionist, and the condemnation of the brotherhood would rest on him. He would soon find himself alone, neglected, and forgotten. Thus it appears far from being an easy matter to rend the body of Christ; and we may add, alas for the man that attempts it.

A number of years since the Methodist body in this country divided into a northern half and a southern half; and each half remained an indorsed and approved half of the body. Such a division as this is with us absolutely impossible. This must be apparent to any one who will even for the shortest time study our structure. As a people, we claim to be individually members of the body of Christ. This we claim, and this is the extent of our claim. Hence no one member, as such, has any superiority over another. Each is alike dependent within certain limits; while beyond these limits, each is alike independent. One member, therefore, has no power to prescribe to another what his faith shall be, his conduct, or his opinions. His faith each takes immediately from the word of God. Here, therefore, he is wholly independent, and in no sense to be interfered with. Yet at the same time, in one sense, he has neither liberty nor discretion. Precisely what is in the word of God he must accept; he has no alternative. If he reject, he is a heretic, and himself to be rejected. If he modify or alter, he is to be looked upon as rejecting. The same is true of his conduct. It must in each case, which is held to be a matter of duty, be strictly determined by the word of God, and no interference therewith is allowable. Thus no individual among us possesses the power, nor can he ever acquire it, to produce such a division as the one just instanced. From individual action, therefore, we may fairly conclude it can never come. On scriptural grounds, of course, it could never be effected; and should any individual attempt [332] to effect it on any other, sure I am his failure would be complete. In a word, on scriptural grounds we never can divide; on unscriptural, we never will.

Again: we have no great ecclesiastic organization through which to effect such division. The only organizations among us possessed of even a vestige of authority are our churches; and these are absolutely independent one of another. How through these, then, is such division to brought to pass? If one church becomes heretical, or fifty churches become heretical, they are all to be repudiated. But this is no division of the body of Christ, but the creation of a faction. This faction is condemned in the New Testament, and is no part of the church. It is not a division in our ranks, but an apostasy from them. The case, therefore, presents no difficulties. To make the point sill clearer. Suppose fifty of our churches were to combine to produce a creed, to introduce organs, and to encourage dancing. As a people, we certainly have no power to prevent it; still we are not without our remedy. As far as the three points named are doctrinal, they are clearly heretical; as far as they are practical, they are schismatical. Hence the churches so combining and so determining would fall certainly under the condemnation of the Scriptures, and would, if they persisted in standing apart on these grounds, have to be rejected. This is as strong a case as can well be imagined, yet it presents no difficulty. Certainly great mischief might thus be done, and the children of God might be made to feel deeply scandalized; still the final disposition of the case admits of no doubt. It might cause much pain, yet our duty would be clear. Neither, then, from an organization can any division come, for the simple reason that we have no organization; nor can it come from any individual church; nor yet can it come from any combination of churches. We can hence well afford to ask how or whence, if at all, is it to arise? If it can not spring from things in the Bible, nor from things out of it; if not from the individual member, nor from a combination of them; if not from the individual church, nor a combination of them—if it can spring from none of these sources, we feel safe in concluding that it can spring from none. From the premises now before us, while it is an easy matter to talk of division, it seems a very difficult thing to lay down the cause from which it is to arise, and to show how it is to be successfully carried out. Indeed, a division of the body of Christ, except in the sense of causing a faction, is impossible. What divine authority makes one it is difficult for man to make two. God works against the man who attempts it, and brings his counsels to naught.

Moreover our past experience may afford us some aid in forming a correct conclusion as to the question in hand. As a people, we have not been wholly free from attempts to produce the precise result of [333] which we are speaking. With what success were they crowned? Far more correctly we could ask: How signally did they fail?

Very early in our effort at reformation, Dr. Thomas, in Virginia, made a vigorous attempt to become the head of a party or sect formed of material collected from our ranks, and holding as its characteristic tenet the doctrine of materialism. He long and obstinately persisted in his effort; and would occasionally find a person weak enough to accept his nonsense as part and essence of revelation. Soon, however, he began to wane, and soon his adherents began in shame to hide their heads. Now we hear his dishonored name mentioned not once in half a score years. This attempt, too, was made at a time when we were comparatively weak,—at a time when we had not, as we now have, a thousand noble sentinels on the walls of Zion, imbued with an intense love of the truth and a never-lessening zeal for its purity, sentinels who, with sleepless eye, watch even the most distant approach of error, and once sound loud the note of alarm. Yet, if the attempt then failed, what, we may confidently ask, would be the end of a similar one now?

Subsequently to Dr. Thomas arose J.B. Ferguson, and tried his hand at effecting a rent in our ranks. Few men will ever possess more of the elements of success than did he. A man of very respectable talents, pleasing manners, and most fascinating address; a man of extensive acquaintance, large family connection, a witching preacher, and one that stood high indeed; a man of rare oratorical tact, who so thoroughly magnetized his audience that he left them with little power to resist him. This man stood at the head of one of the finest churches in our ranks, in a gay, fashionable city, in which he was petted with the affections of a household god. He first tried to drug the carnal portion of his audience with the indulgent doctrine that after the gospel would be again preached to them in the Unseen; and that then and there they might all repent and be saved. By and by he began to evolve and inculcate the more charming features of Universalism. Remonstrances now set in. He heeded them not. He stuck close to tried friends, and tried friends stuck close to him. For as yet the vail was on their mind, and they neither suspected nor understood him. Spiritualism, with its occult charms, mystic writings, and smothered wraps, now began to take root in many a mind. It was just the thing for Ferguson. It soon taught him that the Bible is a book of lies; that Satan and hell are purely fabulous things; that human affection is confined by no limits; that whomsoever a man loves, her let him love, and him let her love. And now he was at the hight of his glory and in the depths of his disgrace. Surely he could lead off a grand party and himself become its great chief. But surely he ingloriously failed. As he sank a few sank with him; they growled and he growled; at last all glided out [334] of view; and now hopeless oblivion has taken the place of former fraternal feeling and respect. He is now a vagrant lecturer against the Bible, and in the interest of Spiritualism; his followers are buried in apostasy, and are powerless for harm. And such we venture to predict will be the mournful fate of every man, be he great or small, gifted or the reverse, who is rash enough to undertake a like work. God will ensnare the man who seeks to subvert his truth, and cover with infamy him who seeks to divide his people.

After Ferguson and recently came poor Walter Scott Russell, and tried to “reform the reformation,” alias lead out a sect. Like the gilded candle-moth, he flitted gayly for a little season around the dazzling but dangerous lamp of French philosophy, till at last it scorched his wings, and left him fluttering on the ground in littleness and neglect, himself the ruin he had criminally sought to work in the house of God. A few unstable and erratic spirits, as usually happens in such cases, determined in their madness to die with him, and they did die. True, in their death-struggle they well-nigh wrecked a church, and for all their pains now have a name that only a convict might covet. After these examples and the doom which has overtaken them, even the most daring of heretics would, it seems to me, act wisely to pause and forecast the probable consequences of his deed, should he attempt to add another to the number of efforts already made to rend our ranks.

Not only have these men been able to produce no division among us, nor in any other way hurtfully to affect us, save by ruining themselves and a few other individuals; but causes far more powerful than have been successfully withstood. From the moment of our denominational origin in this country up to the very present, we have had the exciting and dangerous question of slavery to encounter. Our brethren South stood strongly for, our brethren North strongly against, the institution. Never for a moment did it cease to chafe and fret. At times it certainly became threatening and wore an ugly look. Brethren on both sides would occasionally flame high and talk loud. Still, all through the strife it excited, all through the passion it aroused, we lived without even the semblance of a breach. Other bodies it divided; ours it could not. And if slavery proved inadequate, we may with much composure question the adequacy of other causes. And now the angry topic is laid aside forever. Brethren who opposed it courteously decline to exult; brethren who favored it magnanimously decline to complain. It is settled forever. It has spent its force, and still the children of God are one. As a nation we can never be reproached with it more; as Christians it can never again make us fear. For these results let us be thankful.

But further, we, as a nation and as Christians, have just passed the fierce ordeal of a terrible war, a war in which passion ran to its [335] hight, and feelings became as ferocious as feelings ever get. We had many brethren on both the opposing sides. Many of our churches stood precisely where the carnival raged most. Yet not a rent in our ranks did the war produce. True, for the time being it cooled many an ardent feeling, and caused old friends to regard one another a little shyly. Still it effected no division. And now even those kindly feelings are obviously beginning to flow back; and brethren from the two hostile sides are meeting each other as brethren should ever meet. They even seem to vie with each other in acts of magnanimity and high Christian bearing. The war is never mentioned but in accents of sorrow; crimination and recrimination are never heard; the cause of Christ is the constant topic of conversation; while all noble hearts are beating with joy that our unity is left to us perfect. If now we have triumphantly come through this storm, and still gloriously stand an undivided people, have we not reason to count with confidence on the future? May we not boldly say, trusting in God to help us, we can never divide?

And now let every brother in our ranks show himself a master in efforts to heal whatever of alienation may yet remain. Let not a word be said in any pulpit, not a remark be dropped in the social circle, not a paragraph or sentence be written in any paper, that can chafe or wound. And if heretofore we have known it, let us never more know any North or South in our ranks. Let no river separate us; let no State or other lines keep us apart; but let us henceforward and forever know each other only as the children of God, and never recognize even the remotest chance of division, nor allow any cause to estrange us in our feelings. Let no sectional conventions be called, let no sectional papers be printed, no sectional preachers be sustained; in a word, let the very notion of sectionalism perish from our memories and our hearts. Let us, as a whole and undivided body, work with whole and undivided hearts for the great cause of the Savior. Let us be jealous for the truth, and keep it pure; let our action be one and never slackening; and never did future so enchanting open up to any people.

CAN WE DIVIDE?