Practical Religion Part 22

Nothing is _so common_. It is one of the great family diseases of the whole race of mankind. It is born with us, grows with us, and is never completely cast out of us till we die. It meets us in church, and it meets us in chapel. It meets us among rich, and it meets us among poor.

It meets us among learned people, and it meets us among unlearned. It meets us among Romanists, and it meets us among Protestants. It meets us among High Churchmen, and it meets us among Low Churchmen. It meets us among Evangelicals, and it meets us among Ritualists. Go where we will, and join what Church we may, we are never beyond the risk of its infection. We shall find it among Quakers and Plymouth Brethren, as well as at Rome. The man who thinks that, at any rate, there is no formal religion in his own camp, is a very blind and ignorant person. If you love life, beware of formality.

Nothing is _so dangerous_ to a man's own soul. Familiarity with the form of religion, while we neglect its reality, has a fearfully deadening effect on the conscience. It brings up by degrees a thick crust of insensibility over the whole inner man. None seem to become so desperately hard as those who are continually repeating holy words and handling holy things, while their hearts are running after sin and the world. Landlords who only go to church formally, to set an example to their tenants,--masters who have family prayers formally, to keep up a good appearance in their households,--unconverted clergymen, who are every week reading prayers and lessons of Scripture, in which they feel no real interest,--unconverted clerks, who are constantly reading responses and saying "Amen," without feeling what they say,--unconverted singers, who sing the most spiritual hymns every Sunday, merely because they have good voices, while their affections are entirely on things below,--all, all, all are in awful danger. They are gradually hardening their hearts, and searing the skin of their consciences. If you love your own soul, beware of formality.

Nothing, finally, is _so foolish_, senseless, and unreasonable. Can a formal Christian really suppose that the mere outward Christianity he professes will comfort him in the day of sickness and the hour of death?

The thing is impossible. A painted fire cannot warm, and a painted banquet cannot satisfy hunger, and a formal religion cannot bring peace to the soul.--Can he suppose that G.o.d does not see the heartlessness and deadness of his Christianity? Though he may deceive neighbours, acquaintances, fellow-worshippers, and ministers with a form of G.o.dliness, does he think that he can deceive G.o.d? The very idea is absurd. "He that formed the eye, shall He not see?" He knows the very secrets of the heart. He will "judge the secrets of men" at the last day. He who said to each angel of the seven Churches, "I know thy works," is not changed. He who said to the man without the wedding garment, "Friend, how camest thou in hither?" will not be deceived by a little cloak of outward religion. If you would not be put to shame at the last day, once more I say, beware of formality. (Psalm xciv. 9; Rom.

ii. 16; Rev. ii. 2; Matt. xxii. 11.)

II. I pa.s.s on to the second thing which I proposed to consider. _The heart is the seat of true religion, and the true Christian is the Christian in heart._

The heart is the real test of a man's character. It is not what he says or what he does by which the man may be always known. He may say and do things that are right, from false and unworthy motives, while his heart is altogether wrong. The heart is the man. "As he thinketh in his heart, so is he." (Prov. xxiii. 7.)

The heart is the right test of a man's religion. It is not enough that a man holds a correct creed of doctrine, and maintains a proper outward form of G.o.dliness. What is his heart?--That is the grand question. This is what G.o.d looks at. "Man looketh at the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh at the heart." (1 Sam. xvi. 7.) This is what St. Paul lays down distinctly as the standard measure of the soul: "He is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circ.u.mcision is that of the heart." (Rom. ii. 28.) Who can doubt that this mighty sentence was written for Christians as well as for Jews? He is a Christian, the apostle would have us know, which is one inwardly, and baptism is that of the heart.

The heart is the place where saving religion must begin. It is naturally irreligious, and must be renewed by the Holy Ghost. "A new heart will I give unto you."--It is naturally hard, and must be made tender and broken. "I will take away the heart of stone, and I will give you a heart of flesh." "The sacrifices of G.o.d are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O G.o.d, thou wilt not despise."--It is naturally closed and shut against G.o.d, and must be opened. The Lord "opened the heart" of Lydia. (Ezek. x.x.xvi. 26; Psalm li. 17; Acts xvi. 14.)

The heart is the seat of true saving faith. "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness." (Rom. x. 10.) A man may believe that Jesus is the Christ, as the devils do, and yet remain in his sins. He may believe that he is a sinner, and that Christ is the only Saviour, and feel occasional lazy wishes that he was a better man. But no one ever lays hold on Christ, and receives pardon and peace, until he believes with the heart. It is heart-faith that justifies.

The heart is the spring of true holiness and steady continuance in well-doing. True Christians are holy because their hearts are interested. They obey from the heart. They do the will of G.o.d from the heart. Weak, and feeble, and imperfect as all their doings are, they please G.o.d, because they are done from a loving heart. He who commended the widow's mite more than all the offerings of the wealthy Jews, regards quality far more than quant.i.ty. What He likes to see is a thing done from "an honest and good heart." (Luke viii. 15.) There is no real holiness without a right heart.

The things I am saying may sound strange. Perhaps they run counter to all the notions of some into whose hands this paper may fall. Perhaps you have thought that if a man's religion is correct outwardly, he must be one with whom G.o.d is well pleased. You are completely mistaken. You are rejecting the whole tenor of Bible teaching. Outward correctness without a right heart is neither more nor less than Pharisaism. The outward things of Christianity,--baptism, the Lord's Supper, Church-membership, almsgiving, and the like,--will never take any man's soul to heaven, unless his heart is right. There must be inward things as well as outward,--and it is on the inward things that G.o.d's eyes are chiefly fixed.

Hear how St. Paul teaches us about this matter in three most striking texts: "In Jesus Christ neither circ.u.mcision availeth anything, nor uncirc.u.mcision; but faith that worketh by love."--"In Christ Jesus neither circ.u.mcision availeth anything, nor uncirc.u.mcision, but a new creature."--"Circ.u.mcision is nothing, and uncirc.u.mcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of G.o.d." (1 Cor. vii. 19; Galat. v. 6; Galat. vi. 15.) Did the Apostle only mean in these texts, that circ.u.mcision was no longer needed under the Gospel? Was that all? No indeed! I believe he meant much more. He meant that true religion did not consist of forms, and that its essence was something far greater than being circ.u.mcised or not circ.u.mcised. He meant that under Christ Jesus, everything depended on being born again,--on having true saving faith,--on being holy in life and conduct. He meant that these are the things we ought to look at chiefly, and not at outward forms. "Am I a new creature? Do I really believe on Christ? Am I a holy man?" These are the grand questions that we must seek to answer.

_When the heart is wrong all is wrong in G.o.d's sight._ Many right things may be done. The forms and ordinances which G.o.d Himself has appointed may seem to be honoured. But so long as the heart is at fault G.o.d is not pleased. He will have man's heart or nothing.

The ark was the most sacred thing in the Jewish tabernacle. On it was the mercy-seat. Within it were the tables of the law, written by G.o.d's own finger. The High Priest alone was allowed to go into the place where it was kept, within the veil, and that only once every year. The presence of the ark with the camp was thought to bring a special blessing. And yet this very ark could do the Israelites no more good than any common wooden box, when they trusted to it like an idol, with their hearts full of wickedness. They brought it into the camp, on a special occasion, saying, "Let us fetch the ark, that it may save us out of the hand of our enemies." (1 Sam iv. 3.) When it came in the camp they showed it all reverence and honour. "They shouted with a great shout, so that the earth rang again." But it was all in vain. They were smitten before the Philistines, and the ark itself was taken. And why was this? It was because their religion was a mere form. They honoured the ark, but did not give the G.o.d of the ark their hearts.

There were some kings of Judah and Israel who did many things that were right in G.o.d's sight, and yet were never written in the list of G.o.dly and righteous men. Rehoboam began well, and "for three years walked in the way of David and Solomon." (2 Chron. xi. 17.) But afterwards "he did evil, because he prepared not his _heart_ to seek the Lord." (2 Chron.

xii. 14.)--Abijah, according to the book of Chronicles, said many things that were right, and fought successfully against Jeroboam. Nevertheless the general verdict is against him. We read, in Kings, that "his _heart_ was not perfect with the Lord his G.o.d." (1 Kings xv. 3.)--Amaziah, we are expressly told, "did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, but not with a perfect _heart_." (2 Chron. xxv. 2.)--Jehu, King of Israel, was raised up, by G.o.d's command, to put down idolatry. He was a man of special zeal in doing G.o.d's work. But unhappily it is written of him: "He took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord G.o.d of Israel with all his _heart_: for he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, which made Israel to sin." (2 Kings x. 31.) In short, one general remark applies to all these kings. They were all wrong inwardly. They were rotten at heart.

There are places of worship in England at this very day where all the outward things of religion are done to perfection. The building is beautiful. The service is beautiful. The singing is beautiful. The forms of devotion are beautiful. There is everything to gratify the senses.

Eye, and ear, and natural sentimentality are all pleased. But all this time G.o.d is not pleased. One thing is lacking, and the want of that one thing spoils all. What is that one thing? It is heart! G.o.d sees under all this fair outward show the form of religion put in the place of the substance, and when He sees that He is displeased. He sees nothing with an eye of favour in the building, the service, the minister, or the people, if He does not see converted, renewed, broken, penitent hearts.

Bowed heads, bended knees, loud amens, crossed hands, faces turned to the east, all, all are nothing in G.o.d's sight without right hearts.

_When the heart is right G.o.d can look over many things that are defective._ There may be faults in judgment, and infirmities in practice. There may be many deviations from the best course in the outward things of religion. But if the heart is sound in the main, G.o.d is not extreme to mark that which is amiss. He is merciful and gracious, and will pardon much that is imperfect, when He sees a true heart and a single eye.

Jehoshaphat and Asa were Kings of Judah, who were defective in many things. Jehoshaphat was a timid, irresolute man, who did not know how to say "No," and joined affinity with Ahab, the wickedest king that ever reigned over Israel. Asa was an unstable man, who at one time trusted in the King of Syria more than in G.o.d, and at another time was wroth with G.o.d's prophet for rebuking him. (2 Chron. xvi. 10.) Yet both of them had one great redeeming point in their characters. With all their faults they had right _hearts_.

The pa.s.sover kept by Hezekiah was one at which there were many irregularities. The proper forms were not observed by many. They ate the pa.s.sover "otherwise than the commandment" ordered. But they did it with true and honest _hearts_. And we read that Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, "The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek G.o.d,--though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary. And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people."

(2 Chron. x.x.x. 20.)

The pa.s.sover kept by Josiah must have been far smaller and worse attended than scores of pa.s.sovers in the days of David and Solomon, or even in the reign of Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah. How then can we account for the strong language used in Scripture about it? "There was no pa.s.sover like to that kept in Israel from the days of Samuel the prophet; neither did all the Kings of Israel keep such a pa.s.sover as Josiah kept, and the Priests, and the Levites, and all Judah and Jerusalem that were present." (2 Chron. x.x.xv. 18.) There is but one explanation. There never was a pa.s.sover at which the _hearts_ of the worshippers were so truly in the feast. The Lord does not look at the quant.i.ty of worshippers so much as the quality. The glory of Josiah's pa.s.sover was the state of people's hearts.

There are many a.s.semblies of Christian worshippers on earth at this very day in which there is literally nothing to attract the natural man. They meet in miserable dirty chapels, so-called, or in wretched upper-rooms and cellars. They sing unmusically. They hear feeble prayers, and more feeble sermons. And yet the Holy Ghost is often in the midst of them!

Sinners are often converted in them, and the kingdom of G.o.d prospers far more than in any Roman Catholic Cathedral, or than in many gorgeous Protestant Churches. How is this? How can it be explained? The cause is simply this, that in these humble a.s.semblies heart-religion is taught and held. Heart-work is aimed at. Heart-work is honoured. And the consequence is that G.o.d is pleased and grants His blessing.

I leave this part of my subject here. I ask men to weigh well the things that I have been saying. I believe that they will bear examination, and are all true. Resolve this day, whatever Church you belong to, to be a Christian in _heart_. Whether Episcopalian or Presbyterian, Baptist or Independent, be not content with a mere form of G.o.dliness, without the power. Settle it down firmly in your mind that formal religion is not saving religion, and that heart-religion is the only religion that leads to heaven.

I only give one word of caution. Do not suppose, because formal religion will not save, that forms of religion are of no use at all. Beware of any such senseless extreme. The misuse of a thing is no argument against the right use of it. The blind idolatry of forms which prevails in some quarters is no reason why you should throw all forms aside. The ark, when made an idol of by Israel and put in the place of G.o.d, was unable to save them from the Philistines. And yet the same ark, when irreverently and profanely handled, brought death on Uzza; and when honoured and reverenced, brought a blessing on the house of Obed-edom.

The words of Bishop Hall are strong, but true: "He that hath but a form is a hypocrite; but he that hath not a form is an Atheist." (_Hall's Sermons_, No. 28.) Forms cannot save us, but they are not therefore to be despised. A lantern is not a man's home, and yet it is a help to a man if he travels towards his home in a dark night. Use the forms of Christianity diligently, and you will find them a blessing. Only remember, in all your use of forms, the great principle, that the first thing in religion is the state of the heart.

III. I come now to the last thing which I proposed to consider. I said _that true religion must never expect to be popular. It will not have the praise of man, but of G.o.d._

I dare not turn away from this part of my subject, however painful it may be. Anxious as I am to commend heart-religion to every one who reads this paper, I will not try to conceal what heart-religion entails. I will not gain a recruit for my Master's army under false pretences. I will not promise anything which the Scripture does not warrant. The words of St. Paul are clear and unmistakable. Heart-religion is a religion "whose praise is not of men, but of G.o.d." (Rom. ii. 29.)

G.o.d's truth and Scriptural Christianity are never really popular. They never have been. They never will be as long as the world stands. No one can calmly consider what human nature is, as described in the Bible, and reasonably expect anything else. As long as man is what man is, the majority of mankind will always like a religion of form far better than a religion of heart.

Formal religion just suits an unenlightened conscience. Some religion a man will have. Atheism and downright infidelity, as a general rule, are never very popular. But a man must have a religion which does not require much,--trouble his heart much,--interfere with his sins much.

Formal Christianity satisfies him. It seems the very thing that he wants.

Formal religion gratifies the secret self-righteousness of man. We are all of us more or less Pharisees. We all naturally cling to the idea that the way to be saved is to do so many things, and go through so many religious observances, and that at last we shall get to heaven.

Formalism meets us here. It seems to show us a way by which we can make our own peace with G.o.d.

Formal religion pleases the natural indolence of man. It attaches an excessive importance to that which is the easiest part of Christianity,--the sh.e.l.l and the form. Man likes this. He hates trouble in religion. He wants something which will not meddle with his conscience and inner life. Only leave conscience alone, and, like Herod, he will "do many things." Formalism seems to open a wider gate, and a more easy way to heaven. (Mark vi. 20.)

Facts speak louder than a.s.sertions. Facts are stubborn things. Look over the history of religion in every age of the world, and observe what has always been popular. Look at the history of Israel from the beginning of Exodus to the end of the Acts of the Apostles, and see what has always found favour. Formalism was one main sin against which the Old Testament prophets were continually protesting. Formalism was the great plague which had overspread the Jews, when our Lord Jesus Christ came into the world.--Look at the history of the Church of Christ after the days of the apostles. How soon formalism ate out the life and vitality of the primitive Christians!--Look at the middle ages, as they are called.

Formalism so completely covered the face of Christendom that the Gospel lay as one dead.--Look, lastly, at the history of Protestant Churches in the three last centuries. How few are the places where religion is a living thing! How many are the countries where Protestantism is nothing more than a form! There is no getting over these things. They speak with a voice of thunder. They all show that formal religion is a popular thing. It has the praise of man.

But why should we look at facts in history? Why should we not look at facts under our own eyes, and by our own doors? Can any one deny that a mere outward religion, a religion of downright formality, is the religion which is popular in England at the present day? It is not for nothing that St. John says of certain false teachers, "They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them." (1 John iv. 5.) Only say your prayers,--and go to church with tolerable regularity,--and receive the sacrament occasionally,--and the vast majority of Englishmen will set you down as an excellent Christian.--"What more would you have?" they say: "If this is not Christianity, what is?"--To require more of anyone is thought bigotry, illiberality, fanaticism, and enthusiasm! To insinuate a doubt whether such a man as this will go to heaven is called the height of uncharitableness! When these things are so it is vain to deny that formal religion is popular. It is popular. It always was popular. It always will be popular till Christ comes again. It always has had and always will have "the praise of man."

Turn now to the religion of the heart, and you will hear a very different report. As a general rule it has never had the good word of mankind. It has entailed on its professors laughter, mockery, ridicule, scorn, contempt, enmity, hatred, slander, persecution, imprisonment, and even death. Its lovers have been faithful and ardent,--but they have always been few. It has never had, comparatively, "the praise of man."

Heart-religion is too _humbling_ to be popular. It leaves natural man no room to boast. It tells him that he is a guilty, lost, h.e.l.l-deserving sinner, and that he must flee to Christ for salvation. It tells him that he is dead, and must be made alive again, and born of the Spirit. The pride of man rebels against such tidings as these. He hates to be told that his case is so bad.

Heart-religion is too _holy_ to be popular. It will not leave natural man alone. It interferes with his worldliness and his sins. It requires of him things that he loathes and abominates,--conversion, faith, repentance, spiritual-mindedness, Bible-reading, prayer. It bids him give up many things that he loves and clings to, and cannot make up his mind to lay aside. It would be strange indeed if he liked it. It crosses his path as a kill-joy and a mar-plot, and it is absurd to expect that he will be pleased.

Was heart-religion popular in Old Testament times? We find David complaining: "They that sit in the gate speak against me; and I was the song of the drunkards." (Psalm lxix. 12.) We find the prophets persecuted and ill-treated because they preached against sin, and required men to give their hearts to G.o.d. Elijah, Micaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, are all cases in point. To formalism and ceremonialism the Jews never seem to have made objection. What they did dislike was serving G.o.d with their hearts.

Was heart-religion popular in New Testament times? The whole history of our Lord Jesus Christ's ministry and the lives of His apostles are a sufficient answer. The scribes and Pharisees would have willingly received a Messiah who encouraged formalism, and a Gospel which exalted ceremonialism. But they could not tolerate a religion of which the first principles were humiliation and sanctification of heart.

Has heart-religion even been popular in the professing Church of Christ during the last eighteen centuries? Never hardly, except in the early centuries when the primitive Church had not left her first love. Soon, very soon, the men who protested against formalism and sacramentalism were fiercely denounced as "troublers of Israel." Long before the Reformation, things came to this pa.s.s, that anyone who cried up heart-holiness and cried down formality was treated as a common enemy.

He was either silenced, excommunicated, imprisoned, or put to death like John Huss.--In the time of the Reformation itself, the work of Luther and his companions was carried on under an incessant storm of calumny and slander. And what was the cause? It was because they protested against formalism, ceremonialism, monkery, and priestcraft, and taught the necessity of heart-religion.

Has heart-religion ever been popular in our own land in days gone by?

Never, excepting for a little season. It was not popular in the days of Queen Mary, when Latimer and his brother-martyrs were burned.--It was not popular in the days of the Stuarts, when to be a Puritan was worse for a man than to get drunk or swear.--It was not popular in the middle of last century, when Wesley and Whitfield were shut out of the established Church. The cause of our martyred Reformers, of the early Puritans, and of the Methodists, was essentially one and the same. They were all hated because they preached the uselessness of formalism, and the impossibility of salvation without repentance, faith, regeneration, spiritual-mindedness, and holiness of heart.

Is heart-religion popular in England at this very day? I answer sorrowfully that I do not believe it is. Look at the followers of it among the laity. They are always comparatively few in number. They stand alone in their respective congregations and parishes. They have to put up with many hard things, hard words, hard imputations, hard treatment, laughter, ridicule, slander, and petty persecution. This is not popularity!--Look at the teachers of heart-religion in the pulpit.

They are loved and liked, no doubt, by the few hearers who agree with them. They are sometimes admired for their talents and eloquence by the many who do not agree with them. They are even called "popular preachers," because of the crowds who listen to their preaching. But none know so well as the faithful teachers of heart-religion that few really like them. Few really help them. Few sympathize with them. Few stand by them in any time of need. They find, like their Divine Master, that they must work almost alone. I write these things with sorrow, but I believe they are true. Real heart-religion at this day, no less than in days gone by, has not "the praise of man."

But after all it signifies little what man thinks, and what man praises.

He that judgeth us is the Lord. Man will not judge us at the last day.

Man will not sit on the great white throne, examine our religion, and p.r.o.nounce our eternal sentence. Those only whom G.o.d commends will be commended at the bar of Christ. Here lies the value and glory of heart-religion. It may not have the praise of man, but it has "the praise of G.o.d."

G.o.d approves and honours heart-religion in the life that now is. He looks down from heaven, and reads the hearts of all the children of men.

Wherever He sees heart-repentance for sin,--heart-faith in Christ,--heart-holiness of life,--heart-love to His Son, His law, His will, and His Word,--wherever G.o.d sees these things He is well pleased.