THE CHRISTIAN REVIEW.

NO. XLIV....DECEMBER, 1846.

ARTICLE I.

NON-ESSENTIALS IN RELIGION.

BY JOSEPH BELCHER, D. D.

NOTHING can be more painful than the fact that though the infinitely blessed God has, in the overflowings of his love, given to man the knowledge of the way of happiness, yet man almost always is found to reject it. Infidelity, unknown in hell, is found on earth. Jehovah has declared, "there is no peace to the wicked;" devils believe the fact, and seek not enjoyment in sin; but man rejects the statement, and pursues happiness in the paths of rebellion, as though he were sure to obtain it. To account for all this we have no difficulty. Reason, the eye of the soul, is blind; conscience, the judgment of the soul, is perverted; the will, the governor of the soul, is corrupted; in a word, the whole nature of man is depraved; he has believed the great enemy of God rather than God himself, and the results have been degradation, misery, and the curse of Deity.

But we have now to speak of another, and in general, a very different class of persons. We refer to those who profess to believe and to love the remedial system of Christianity. The gospel has presented itself to them in its simple beauty, and in its exact adaptation to their moral necessities. They profess to believe it, to admire

VOL. XI. NO. XLIV.

41

it, and to regulate their lives by its requirements. But, alas, neither their faith nor obedience are found complete. They are indisposed to receive some of its statements, and are still less ready to obey some of its injunctions. They willingly believe what may gratify their taste, and cheerfully do what may accord with their wishes; but whatever calls for self-denial is, on one pretext or another, avoided. They resemble some of old, whom our Lord addressed when he asked, "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?" Or rather, they are found in the class to whom he said, "These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." We could almost weep, when we hear these persons calling Jesus Lord, and claiming to be regarded as his followers -his imitators.

There is a considerable company of professing Christians to be found wherever the gospel is known, who often speak of certain doctrines, which may involve the exercise of self-denial, as non-essential. "True," they will say, "we ought to believe such a truth-to cherish such a spirit-or to obey such a command,-but it is not essential to salvation." With what emphasis do such persons need to be reminded of what, in the light of revelation, seems to be a self-evident truth,—that every part of the divine law ought to be practically regarded. We know not the professor of religion who would in words deny this plain proposition; but are there not those who frequently act in opposition to it?

Non-essential! Whence did they get the word? We find it not in the vocabulary of God's book. We hear it not from the lips of prophets or evangelists; we read not of its being uttered by apostles nor by primitive Christians. It was not heard in the prisons or at the stakes of the martyrs; nor does it often now fall from the lips of those who are eminent for their faith and their holiness. Nay, the word, as applied to any requirement of God, is never uttered in the solemnity of addressing him, nor is the believer in Jesus disposed to use it when his heart overflows with gratitude as he looks at the cross and on him who died thereon.

We are aware that a sentiment may be found in the Scriptures in language differing from that in which we usually express it, or it may be involved in doctrines

clearly taught where it is not distinctly expressed; but we ask with all confidence, where shall we find a sanction to the sentiment-"There are some things commanded by Jehovah which need not be done?" We ask the Christian reader to review this sentiment; is it not a clear translation of the doctrine that there are Christian principles or duties, a full regard to which is not essential to salvation? And will a Christian avow this sentiment? Will he cherish it? Will he, however secretly, act upon it? You surely tremble as your eye again runs over the language which expresses a sentiment such as the best feelings of your heart must abhor; and yet, as there is a secret infidelity which conscience will not allow its possessor to avow, so in the hearts of Christians are often concealed principles on which they act, but which they would tremble to utter. It may indeed be suspected that rebellion against God is not greatly concealed, when Christians can be found openly extenuating the sin of disobedience to his law. Let the reader very carefully examine the state of his heart concerning this matter.

We will suppose it possible that even Christian men, whose souls have been brought by almighty grace to a reliance on his atonement, yet under the influence of remaining ignorance and depravity, are scarcely willing to obey God in all things, and cast about for excuses to neglect some revealed portions of his law. Assured as we are that such feelings and such conduct are equally offensive to the blessed God, injurious to those who adopt them, and awful in their influence on the church and the world, we earnestly implore such persons to examine the sentiment we are now censuring, in the light of the authority and character of the divine law, their own character and profession,-the influence they exert on others-and the solemnities of a future judgment.

I. We entreat that the unavowed sentiment, which is nevertheless entertained and acted on by many Christians -that some things are commanded by Jehovah which need not be done,-may be examined in the light of the authority and the character of the divine law. Who is the author of the law, which its professors so often presume to disobey? Is it not the eternal I AM, whose infinite greatness, purity and wisdom demand your most humble adoration and love? Is he not your creator,

benefactor, governor and judge? Did he not form you purposely that you might love, obey and glorify him? When men had every where broken that law, and considered it of small importance, did he not send his own Son to assert its authority, to honor it by perfect obedience, and fully to recognize all its just claims? And if, as we are taught in the holy volume, the Spirit of his grace now resides in our world, is not the grand object of his mission to write anew the law of God on the hearts of sinners, and to dispose them fully to obey it? And has he not threatened with eternal punishment those who violate his requirements, and who refuse to obey him? Does Jehovah thus act that you should in all things obey his law,—and is it safe to neglect the least jot or tittle of it, and still more, to teach this doctrine to others? Are you wiser than God; or rather, are you not convicted of cherishing a spirit of disobedience to his infinite claims?

Nor will the sinfulness of this theory and conduct. appear less, if you consider the character of the law itself. Its first demand is that of supreme love to its author, who is also your father; and its second grand requirement is that of love to his whole family, equal in purity and in degree to that which you owe to yourselves. All the precepts of the sacred volume are so many illustrations of this law, adapted to the various circumstances in which man is placed. Is not this law pure, harmonious and lovely? Point out, if you can, the single precept that is objectionable. Take, for instance, the precept requiring Christian baptism, so often objected to, and calmly tell us, in the sight of the Lawgiver, and in view of the institution itself, wherein its injustice, or even its hardship consists? It is true that it requires, in some circumstances, a small, and but a very small portion of self-denial. And is not this principle of self-denial essential to obedience? What is the law but the declared will of a superior, who intended to test the extent of our allegiance to him? Was there ever a law which did not involve self-denial? Did not the injunction to our first parents in Eden call for more self-denial than they were disposed to yield? Is not the whole system of practical Christianity constructed on the principle, so clearly laid down by its author, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me?"

Nay, was not the whole course of the Saviour's own life one of constant self-denial, and was not the most affecting of all his prayers couched in the language "not my will, but thine be done?" Is it not recorded as a leading feature of his character,-" Even Christ pleased not himself?" Mr. Hall has well said, "Many allege that baptism is merely an ordinance of an external nature, not a thing of serious moment, like repentance, faith, and other essential principles; but like the religious observance, or non-observance, of particular days, which St. Paul mentions as a thing left free to the judgment of individuals. This is a presumptuous and a dangerous position; it is to separate the commands of God into two classes, those which are weighty, and those which are unimportant. We must apply to this case the apostle's argument respecting the decalogue. All the ten commandments, it may be alleged, were not of equal weight; yet the apostle reasons that he who said, 'Thou shalt not steal,' is the same who said also, Thou shalt not kill;' and that whether a man kill another, or only steal from him, he is equally guilty before God, as a transgressor of the divine law; for whosoever shall offend in one point is guilty of all.' It is the authority of the Divine Lawgiver that is the nexus of obligation; and, therefore, I affirm, such a position as that to which I have adverted is dangerous, because such a method of procedure strikes high, and tends to invalidate all authority, all obligation."* Let these remarks be carefully weighed in the balance of truth and of conscience, and then let us ask who are we, that we should declare any portion of the law of a holy God nonessential, because it falls below the measure of our love, and war against inclinations opposed to Jehovah and his law?

6

The persons of whom we are speaking as averse to what they regard the lesser portions of the divine law, are not infidels-not blasphemous, not profane persons, but they claim to be regarded as Christians; we ask them, then,

II. To look at the sentiment on which they act in the light of the character they profess to sustain. You tell us that you are believers in the Lord Jesus, that you are

* Works, Vol. iv. pp. 245, 246.

VOL. XI.-NO. XLIV.

41*