about these designations, or the body thus described. That, then, is the body of which to be a member, and there is no propriety in stopping to look after any other. There can be no other except in rebellion against King Jesus. He is the absolute Monarch, and can admit no rival. He is to reign till he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power; for he must reign till he has put all enemies under his feet.

The kingdom of God, the Church of God, or the body of Christ, are different designations for the same body. We all agree, then, what to call it, how to designate it, and we agree, after all, that the main matter is to be a member of the body of Christ; that if a man is not a member of that body; that if he is not a citizen of the kingdom of God; is not in the Church of God— he is without, an alien, a foreigner, stranger, without God and without hope in the world. Can a man consent to live in this condition; this state of despondency; without hope; can he thus meet death, and go into vast eternity, into the presence of his God and Judge; and can he stand before Him who loved him, and the Lord who died for him; who poured out his most precious blood to cleanse him from sin, and give an account of his ingratitude, in despising his grace, love and compassion, and refusing his gracious invitations to the last? “Turn, turn,” says the prophet; "why will ye die?"

21

SERMON No. XI.

THEME.-MATTERS OF DISAGREEMENT.

THE theme selected for the present discourse is by no means a pleasant one. Happy would it have been for as if there had been, and were now, no matters of disagreement on which to discourse. But such is not the state of the case-far otherwise. The world has been full of adverse teaching, and will be, no doubt, for much time to come. We must take the case as it is, and not as we would have it; as we find it, and not as we desire to leave it. These differences are in the world, and we must deal with them as matters of fact, and not of fancy; matters of reality, and not of fiction.

The first teaching of which we have an account, after the Lord gave his law to man, was adverse to the law of God, and certainly most perverse. It started a dispute about the divine penalty threatened in case of a violation of the divine law. It certainly was not that the law was not clear enough, setting forth the divine penalty, nor does there appear to have been any misunderstanding of the law. The case was not more flagrant than has existed in numerous instances since, but it was perverse indeed. The law said: "Thou shalt surely die." The new and opposing teacher faced this, and preached it: "God knows that you shall not surely die." He started out with a disagreement at once. The issue was between the words, "shall surely die," and "shall not surely die." The Lord ended this dispute in

a summary way. He inflicted the penalty in accordance with the law, and sent a curse on the preacher that undertook to set aside the divine penalty. This ought to have been a warning to all in after ages, who undertook to set aside the divine penalty. But there have been plenty of teachers since who promise the wicked life, or we should not have the following language from the prophet: "With lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked ways, by promising him life.”—See Ezekiel xiii. 22. The Lord adds this to these lying prophets, who deceive the people: "Therefore ye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations: for I will deliver my people out of your hand: and ye shall know that I am the Lord."-Ezekiel xiii. 23. This is certainly warning enough for men who promise the wicked life, or try to show that we can obtain the divine blessing without complying with the divine law; the men who call evil good, and good evil, "slay the souls that should not die," and "save the souls alive that should not live."-See Ezekiel xiii. 19.

But the intention of this discourse is to consider the matters of disagreement that have distracted the body of Christ. These will have to be considered briefly to grasp, in the narrow space to be occupied here, the matters really necessary to accomplish the object in view. Only a few of the more important matters can be considered at all.

1. The doctrine of the Trinity, so-called, was among the early questions of difference; one over which there were as heated controversies, as much strife and alienation, as much discord and confusion, as ever existed "over any question ever agitated, and even the most bit

ter persecution. Men speculated about the mode and nature of the Divine Existence, spun out the most subtile, recondite and speculative theories; preached them and wrote them over and over again, and required the people to believe them; received those who believed. them, and anathematized those who did not. The theories not only related to the Almighty Father, but to the Savior, and to the Spirit. In a short time after this discussion was fully under way, there was but little said about the belief of the divine testimony concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; but the question was about the belief of what men were saying about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The theories of uninspired men were written out, systematized, and embodied in writing, and men could not be received on the belief of what God had said of himself, of the Lord Jesus the Christ, and of the Holy Spirit; but were received on the belief of the theories thus written out by uninspired men. If they said they believed those theories, they received them; if they did not believe those theories, they did not receive them; and if they opposed those theories, they anathematized and persecuted them.

It mattered not if a man believed every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God; every word in the revelation from God, concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, if he did not believe their theories about it-that their theories contained the meaning of what God had said, he was anathema. The testimony of God was not the foundation of the faith, or not the matter to be believed, but the theories of uninspired men on it, which must be regarded as the meaning of it. They went on the principle that the wisdom of God either could not, or could, but did not, state the meaning as clearly as they could state it. They wrote,