NO CONCORD BETWEEN
CHRIST AND BELIAL

by Daniel Musser

I have mostly named only those corruptions which are defended and supported by these popular churches; but may we not well and truly say of them, as the Apostles did of the Gentiles, “It is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.”  And here let me ask everyone candidly to reflect upon what he himself knows of these things!  Look at the great structure of popular religion – at the fighting, bickering, backbiting, and slandering – how they call each other liars, traitors, scoundrels, and every evil name they can invent.  And, when we say they cannot be Christians, they charge us with judging!  Is this not amazingly inconsistent?

Christ said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments,” and, “Why call ye me Lord, and do not the things which I command you.  He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me.  He that loveth me not, keepeth not my sayings.”  John said, “This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments,” and, “He that sayeth, ‘I know Him,’ and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him,” and “If we say we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not the truth.”

Doesn’t all this prove that those who live according to the flesh, and bring forth these evil fruits, are carnal, destitute of the spirit and love of God, and in darkness?  It is our rebellious, stubborn hearts that prevent us from obeying the commands of Christ, because his commands are at variance with our self-love.  Samuel said to Saul, “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.  For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.”  God never countenanced any worship of old which was not in accordance with his command.  Whenever the Israelites departed from the command of God, He rejected their sacrifices, however rich or numerous they were.  “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?  I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts.  Your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble to me; I am weary to bear them.”  All this was because they did not regard the word of the Lord in His commandments.  Saul was commanded to destroy Amalek.  He should have spared nothing, utterly destroying “man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”  But Saul spared the king, and kept the best of the oxen and sheep, and the chief of the things, to sacrifice to the Lord.  But Samuel asked him, “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord?”  This act of Saul had a semblance of desire to honor God, but it was founded on a delusive idea.  Whenever we depart from the word of the Lord, our devices and imaginings are vain, and cause us to be rejected, as Saul was rejected for rejecting the word of the Lord.  God had given him a command, and he did not obey.  This was stubbornness, and the prophet said it was as idolatry.  Saul had set up an idol in his heart, in conceiving a sacrifice or offering contrary to God’s word.  This was idolatry.  Thus Paul said, “Covetousness is idolatry.”  This is because there is an object in the heart, which is prized or worshipped above God.  Whatever we love more than God is therefore our idol.

All worship, therefore, that is not dictated or instituted by God is idolatry.  Man’s devices and commandments were ever declared to be abomination to God.  True worship, under the Law, was that which adhered closely to God’s command, for without faith it is impossible to please God, and faith would bind its possessor to the Word of God.  Under the Gospel, the true worshippers worship God in spirit and in truth.  Those who were destitute of the faith of old could not worship in faith, and those who are destitute of the spirit now cannot worship in spirit.  The true and faithful Israelites would not take any part in the idolatrous worship of their people.  The Lord said to Elijah, “I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees of which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.”  Every knee that had bowed unto Baal, and every mouth that had kissed him, were not the Lord’s.  If every transgression and disobedience under the Law received a just reward, how shall we now escape, if we refuse to hear Him who speaks from Heaven?

Paul told the Corinthians, “Dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.  The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God.”  The Gentiles were idolaters, but they did not generally worship or sacrifice to devils professedly; yet the Apostle classed them all together, and said that the things which they sacrificed, they sacrificed to devils.  But it does not matter what the object was of which they made images, or what it was which they sacrificed to – it was a devilish spirit that actuated them.  There might be said to be but two spirits, one of God and one of the devil.  John said that there are many spirits that have gone out into the world, but still there are only two sources from which they emanate, and are still in reality only two.  The spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit, would not prompt or lead anyone to sacrifice to, or worship idols.  All the idols, false worship, or commandments of men that have ever been instituted, are by the instigation of the devil.  Hence the Apostle said, “What the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God.”

All false and erroneous worship is dictated by the same spirit as the sacrifices of the Gentiles were, and may in truth as well be said to be, a worshipping of devils, as the other is a sacrificing to devils.  The Israelites, as a nation, never fell so deeply into idolatry as utterly to deny and forsake the worship of the God of Israel, or to acknowledge the heathen deities as being the only true Gods.  They always valued themselves as being the children of Abraham, and God as having brought their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and having done them such signal favors.  They made images and idols, and erected altars in groves and upon hills, contrary to the command of God; but they still had some of their own peculiar rites and ceremonies of their distinctive service attending it.  Yet God complained more of their idolatry and abominations than He did of the Gentiles’.  The same spirit that had led the Gentiles into their gross idolatry and abominations, had taken possession of Israel; and their service was of the same character in the sight of God.

The Apostle Paul said of the Gentiles, “When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image.  Wherefore, God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.”  When the same spirit, which led the Gentiles to become vain in their own imaginations, took possession of the Jews, it led them into the same vain and sensual life, and even though they did not utterly deny the God of Israel, and still retained His name and a part of His rites, yet God complained of their idolatry, and said “it is abomination in His sight.”  And even when the Lord did not complain of their corrupting the ceremonial service, and it seemed as if they were very zealous in it, yet, on account of their transgression of the moral Law, God told them He was weary of the multitude of their sacrifices, and rejected their solemn feasts.  (Isaiah 1)  And when the Lord Jesus was in the flesh, He did not charge the Pharisees with open idolatry, but yet He said that they were of their father the devil, and his lusts they would do.  Their adherence to the name and form of the service did not alter the character of the service, when the spirit that dictated the service was lost.

And now, let anyone read the New Testament, and compare the instructions the Holy Spirit gives there with the popular religion of the present day, and then ask his own heart whether it is not as far from the spirit of the Gospel as ever the Jews departed from their commandment in the Law.  They are even much further than the Pharisees were when the Savior was on earth, and yet the one is called abominable idolatry and the other children of the devil!  Look at the war and bloodshed, look at the contention and strife, ambition, avarice, pride, hatred, and variance; the vain ostentation in their churches, their luxury and extravagance, their amusements, plays, parties, theatres, circuses, fairs and social pastimes, and then enquire whether there is more of the spirit of the Gospel in it than there was of the Law in Israel’s service, at the time of their corruption.

Jesus Christ said that we shall come to Him and learn of Him, for He is “meek and lowly in heart.  But where is the evidence of our modern popular worshippers having been with Jesus, or that they have learned these virtues of Him?  I would ask: in what way do they differ from those who do not profess Christianity?  Is there more difference between those who profess and those who do not, than there was between Jews and Gentiles?  Do those who profess as a body not show as much carnality, as much self-love, envy, vanity, irritability, and, in short, do they not live as much after the flesh as the mass of those who do not profess?  Can we then conclude that they are under any other spirit than that of the world?  Jesus Christ and the Apostles have given us the command to beware of false prophets, and not to be yoked together with unbelievers, and said, “by their fruits we shall know them.”  This, then, we hold, is not judging, but Jesus Christ has already judged and given us his judgment.

The reason why we can take no part with these worshippers, or acknowledge them as brethren, is because we look upon it as being a spiritless exercise and nothing less than idolatry.  The same spirit that led men into idolatry of old, and the Jews to depart from the Law of the Lord, has led to this carnal, irregular, service.  We feel constrained, in obedience to the command of the Savior and his Apostles, to withdraw from their worship and reprove them, and bear a protest against all the unfruitful works of darkness, no matter under what guise or pretences they are practiced.

We are accused of being selfish, uncharitable, and self-righteous.  The latter principle is highly offensive to God and man.  No Christian can be self-righteous, for they cannot be Christians until their own righteousness becomes as filthy rags to them, and they, as humble beggars, come to cast all their own virtues away, and accept the merits and righteousness of another.  They can continue to be Christians only so long as they continue to cast away their own and depend on the merits and righteousness of Christ.  True charity is that which cries aloud, and spares not, regardless of person and profession.  It reproves, rebukes, exhorts, and admonishes with all long-suffering and doctrine.  Self-love or selfishness seeks the favor and good will of man.  We confess that we feel this in the flesh as well as all other men do, and if we would let this influence us, it would lead us to such a practice as would secure us the good will of man.  There is no practice in our profession that brings us so much reproach as this; and self-love, if it influenced us at all, would certainly not lead us to a course in which it has to suffer so much mortification.  If we would even protest against the popular religion of our day as strongly in all respects as we do, yet would attend their worship and service occasionally, and only relax this one feature of our profession, it would secure us a very large degree of their friendship and favor, and also secure large accessions to our church.  It would seem to me, therefore, that natural reasons would show thatthis cannot be the motive.  But this we will admit, that if the motives attributed to us by our opponents influence us, then our religion is vain.  The destruction of this principle is the very object for which the religion of Jesus Christ was instituted, and it will accomplish this purpose; and where this purpose is not accomplished, there is also none of his religion, for they are antagonistic principles, and can no more exist together in the heart than light and darkness can commune.

I have said in the foregoing part of this work that the religion of Jesus Christ is reasonable and consistent.  Every man who rises to preach the Gospel, does by the act make a virtual profession that he is a converted man, and under the influence of the Holy Spirit, who directs him what to teach.  One teaches that it is our duty as Christians to take up arms and defend or fight for the country; another tells us the Holy Spirit teaches him that it is sin.  This will suffice for my purpose.  There might be many more such differences cited, but I will forbear.  Can any reasonable person believe that these can both be instructed by this Holy Spirit?  This is neither reasonable nor consistent.  Then it cannot be the religion of Jesus Christ, or else His religion is not consistent.  Paul said, “We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us.”  If any two or more men would come to our President, professing to be ambassadors from any foreign power, and would represent the will of their Sovereign in a very widely different manner, what would our President do?  He would evidently refuse to have anything to do with anyone, until he would apply to the power to know whom, or whether any of them, was his accredited agent.  Thus every sincere and upright person must do.  Apply to Jesus and His Word, and there he will find an infallible guide.

Christ said in John 10, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, is a thief and a robber; but he that entereth in by the door is the Shepherd of the sheep.”  Christ is here evidently speaking of the visible church.  Into this, unconverted persons have climbed from the beginning of its institution.  The invisible church no unconverted person can enter.  The visible church is here compared to a fold of sheep, the shepherd or pastor of which must also have entered into the fold by true conversion through Christ the door.  To such a shepherd the porter (or Holy Spirit) opens.  He goes before, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice, “and a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers.”

Isn’t the Savior’s meaning here very plain?  He told us as plainly as it is possible for language to do, that every unconverted person who enters the visible church of Christ is a thief and a robber; and especially such as assume to preach the Gospel.  Let the expression sound as offensive as it will, we must take it, as it is the word of Christ.  You and I, whoever we are, whatever we may think of ourselves, or whatever the world may think of us, if we have not been truly born again or converted, and thereby entered into the fold of Christ through Him, we are a thief and a robber.  Turn it which way we will, we can make nothing else out of it; it sounds the same awful warnings in our ear.

All who enter into Christ are brethren of one family, and are here compared to sheep of one fold.  The shepherd is the minister, or teacher, or spiritual guide of the external or visible church or fold.  It can be very easily comprehended that it is important that he should himself have entered into Christ by true conversion; and that by a life of humility and self-denial, he also continues in him, so that Christ, by the Holy Spirit, may direct him what to teach.  “To him the porter openeth.”  The Holy Spirit opens the word of eternal truth to the true shepherd of Christ, so that he may lead and direct the sheep of Christ into the living pastures, and to the pure fountains of the living Word of God.  The sheep, those who have entered the fold through Christ, those who have been truly converted, know his voice.  They have themselves experienced the work of conversion, have felt what sin is, have also felt what the love of God is, and, being thereby made partakers of the divine nature, they know its influence and they are also enabled, by this light, to distinguish what is truth and what is error.  Therefore, when their shepherd speaks of these things, they do not sound strange to them; the voice is familiar; they have themselves experienced them.  When the shepherd speaks to them of the mode by which Satan seeks to lead them away from the simplicity of Christ, and teaches them their duties, these all agree with the spirit they have received, and they know the voice.  Natural sheep know their shepherd, they also know his voice, and they follow him wherever he leads them.  Thus the true children of God will follow their teachers.  “He goes before them,” said the Savior.  He sets them a good example, and they follow after him, as he does the shepherd and bishop of their souls, Jesus Christ.

The stranger is evidently intended to mean one who has not entered the Church or fold through Christ, but has climbed up some other way, and is also a thief and a robber.  These are called strangers, because they are not “fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.”  They do not belong to the “household of faith,” and are therefore strangers.  Whenever there is a family of children, born of the same parents, any other one in the house, who does not stand in the relation of a child, is called a stranger.  He is of strange blood, and cannot be heir with or enjoy the rights of a child.  Thus those who enter into the church, and are not born again by the incorruptible seed of the Word of God, are not of the household, or heirs of God.  They are strangers, and when they speak, their voice is strange.  They speak of things that the children have not learned of Christ.  When they teach a doctrine differing from what Christ taught, it is strange to them.  They “have not so learned Christ,” and they will not hear it.  They will flee from him, because they know not his voice.

“The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy.”  The thief is the same as the stranger.  He is not born of God, is a stranger, and is dangerous besides.  He is a false prophet and an unbeliever, has a strange voice, and by this fruit the sheep know him; and so will not hear him, because they know he is come only to steal, kill, and destroy.  He is disobedient and stubborn, and the Devil has his work in him, as it is said, he works in the children of disobedience.  This is as witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.

Reflect well on these words, and mark what Christ said: “He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, is a thief and a robber.”  This refers to and includes everyone who is not born again.  It matters not how honest and well meaning he may be, if he is himself deceived, and truly imagines he is called of God to preach the Gospel, he is nevertheless a thief and a robber, even though he is deluded.  He is blind at the best, and if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.  Many of the Gentiles may be in a measure innocent, yet “what they sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God.”  These not having entered in through the door are thieves and robbers; they are strange and dangerous, and the Savior said that the sheep will not hear them; they will flee from them, because they know they steal, kill, and destroy.  They may not steal any earthly treasure, may not kill or destroy the body, but they steal the heavenly treasure of love to God by infusing false doctrine into the mind, and instilling ideas and views which tend to the gratification of the flesh and the mind, thereby robbing the soul of the love of God, and poisoning it with false doctrine, so that the soul must die.  Thus they steal, kill, and destroy.

If Christ had not given the sheep evidence whereby they could surely know the stranger and hireling from the good shepherd, they would not know how to make this distinction here referred to.  But Christ said that they will not hear a stranger, but will flee.  How could they flee, if they do not know?  Then it is evident that where there is a strange voice, those who do not flee are not sheep, for they will flee!

The Savior further called this stranger, thief, and robber “a hireling,” and said, “He careth not for the sheep.”  Christ gave His life for the sheep, and those who have been converted and entered into the fold through Christ, the door, are made partakers of the divine nature, receive the mind of Christ, and have the love of God shed abroad in the heart through the Holy Spirit.  These love the souls of their brethren, and would run any and every risk to secure the safety of the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made them overseers.  But the hireling has no further interest in the work he is engaged in than his wages, and when he sees these to be in danger, he will not work.  The hireling has no interest in the sheep.  He does not care for them.  Therefore, when he sees the wolf coming, he will flee.  He sees his wages to be in danger, and these he will not risk.  The devil is evidently the wolf here spoken of, or alluded to, and it is said that he may be seen coming.  “He seeth the wolf coming.”  The devil or wolf approaches the flock of Christ by working on the lusts and desires of the flesh and the mind, inclining them to light-mindedness and carnal enjoyments.  This is first wrought in the mind and feelings of the individual, unperceived by any other; and if those whom he is approaching would be watchful, and flee to the great shepherd of their souls, the wolf could get no advantage.  Neither could he approach close enough for the shepherd to perceive.  But when he gets so much hold as to be perceptible in the walk and conversation, then the shepherd can see the wolf coming.  This is by any of the fruits of the flesh manifesting themselves.  Here they must labor as Christ and the Apostles taught us, for the purpose of making the erring aware of their decline.  This is not done by declaiming in a general way against sin and the works of the flesh, but by laboring individually with those who are infected with leaven, as Christ taught.  If the shepherd would see a wolf capturing a sheep, it would do no good to cry wolf; he would have to enter into combat with the wolf if he would rescue his sheep.  David said that when the lion and the bear took the lamb out of the flock, of which he was the shepherd, “I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth; and when he arose against me, I caught him by the beard, and smote him, and slew him.”  This was attended with danger to David, but he felt an interest in the sheep, and he did not flee at the approach of the wolf.  It is not an uncommon thing, when a brother falls into error, or is captivated by the flesh, if the shepherd labors to make him aware of his sin, the spirit or wolf will rise against him.  This may bring him into danger and trouble, but the faithful shepherd is not deterred from doing his duty by any personal consideration.  But the hireling, who has no interest in the sheep but the wool, who does not serve the Lord Jesus Christ but his belly, fearing he may incur the displeasure of the offender, or his interests or reputation may suffer, passes by, and so the wolf catches and scatters the whole flock.  How significant is this word, scatters.  The flock of Christ, or his fold, is a unit.  “There are three-score queens, and four-score concubines, and virgins without number.  My dove, my undefiled, is but one.  She is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bore her.”  (Songs of Solomon 6)  When the flock is scattered, it is evidence that the wolf has caught them.  Take the church in its present popular sense, and it cannot be scattered.  A thing to be scattered must be in some kind of contact or proximity first, but the present nominal church is already so scattered that no wolf could accomplish more, and is evidence that the wolf has long since been among them.

In Leviticus 17, the Lord said, “Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him.”  Christ and the Apostles plainly instruct us how we shall labor with our brethren, so as not to allow sin upon them; and if they will not reform, we shall hold them as heathen men and publicans.  But who does not know that the most shameful irregularities occur in the great popular churches of the present day.  Drunkenness, lying, cheating, backbiting, defaming and gossiping are of frequent occurrence, and can not help but come to the knowledge of the pastors; but we hear little of confessions, retractions, or restitutions being made, or even a scriptural rebuke being administered – especially if the offender is a person of respectability in society, or of influence and good standing.  I know there are many persons of estimable moral character, amiability, and virtue among them, but these also very well know that what we assert is true of numbers of their brethren.  Thus the hireling flees, and the sheep are destroyed.

It is said that Luther was so much disgusted, in his latter days, at the immorality of his people in Wittenberg, that he left the place in disgust, with the intention of spending the remainder of his days elsewhere.  There is no doubt but Luther declaimed loudly and earnestly against these immoralities; but had he been a faithful shepherd, taken none into the fold but such as gave evidence that they had entered into Christ, then fed the flock with the pure living pastures of the Word of God, and faithfully defended them against the assault of the wolf, he would not have had to complain so bitterly of them.

John Wesley also reaped the bitter fruits of his remissness, in his latter days.  In his writings he bears a strong testimony against the gaiety and fashions of his day.  He said, “I exhort all those who desire me to watch over their souls to wear no gold, pearls, or precious stones; to use no curling of hair or costly apparel, howsoever grave.  I advise those who are able to receive this saying to buy no velvet, no silks, no fine linen, no superfluities, no mere ornaments, though ever so much in fashion.  Wear nothing, though you have it already, which is of a glaring color, or which is in any way gay, glittering, and showy; nothing made in the very height of the fashion; nothing apt to attract the eyes of the bystanders.  I do not advise women to wear rings, earrings, necklaces, laces (of whatever kind or color), or ruffles, which, by little and little, may shoot easily from one to twelve inches deep.  Neither do I advise men to wear colored waistcoats, shining stockings, glittering or costly buckles or buttons, either on their coats or in their sleeves, any more than gay, fashionable, and expensive powdered wigs.”  He maintained that curling the hair, and wearing gold, precious stones, and costly apparel were expressly forbidden in Scripture, and that whoever says there is no harm in these things, might as well say there is no harm in stealing and adultery.  In spite, however, of his exhortations, those of his own people who could afford it, “the very people that sat under the pulpit, or by the side of it,” were as fashionably adorned as others of their own rank.  “This,” said Wesley, “is a melancholy truth: I am ashamed of it, but I know not how to help it.  I call Heaven and earth to witness this day, that it is not my fault.  The trumpet has not given an uncertain sound for nearly the last fifty years.  I have borne a clear and faithful testimony.  In print, in preaching, in meeting the Society, I have not shunned to declare the whole counsel of God.  I am therefore clear of the blood of those that will not hear; it lies upon their own heads.  Let your dress be cheap as well as plain – otherwise, you do but trifle with God, and me, and your own souls.”

This language shows, as plainly as language can show, that Wesley knew that such fruits were not of the kind to give the producer promise, or else he would not have spoken of blood guiltiness.  There is no doubt he did speak and write earnestly against them; but still as a faithful shepherd, he had a further duty to perform.  These people, who thus violated his rule, were not truly humbled in heart, or they would not have required that he should have to direct them in these things.  If it were vanity, or a desire to gratify the flesh, that induced them to act thus, the mere self-denial on account of Wesley’s command would not have made them better.  His duty was to convince them of sin, and from where all sin comes.  If they could have been made aware of the evil treasure of their hearts, which brought the desire for those things that are sinful, and had been led by this sense away from their gaiety and superfluity, he would not have had cause to complain.  There is no doubt Wesley took many a man into his congregation who had been a drunkard before conversion.  But he did not receive him into his society on any confession until he saw the fruits of his conversion in the reformation of life.  If such a person had made ever so much profession of being converted and blessed, but would get drunk, steal, or commit adultery, Wesley would have said they are either a hypocrite or grossly deceived, and unless they would repent of their sins, they could not be saved.  If as he said, we might as well have said there is no harm in adultery or stealing, as to say there is none in such extravagance of dress as he noticed, and he took the one into his society, he might as well have taken the other in also.  We are not informed whether these people did once lay off their vain dress, and afterwards took it up again, or whether they never laid it off.  But it does not matter.  If he thought it was sin, and the word gave him power, then as a faithful sentinel on the watch-towers of Jerusalem, he should have refused such admittance into the house of God until he had better evidence of a change of heart; and if they had given him that evidence before their admission, and he saw them inclining to a relapse into sin, his duty was, regardless of the consequences to himself, to rescue the lamb from the grasp of the lion.

He said, “I might have been as firm (and I now see it would have been far better) as either the people called Quakers or the Moravian brethren; I might have said, ‘This is our manner of dress, which we know is both scriptural and rational.  If you join with us, you are to dress as we do; but you need not join us, unless you please.’  But alas, the time is now past.”  Wesley noticed the inconsistency of the Quakers in adopting so plain a dress, but being so fine and costly. [20]  Inconsistency will always be the case where a rule, command, or ordinance, is based on any command of man.  If Wesley had adopted such a rule, his people would have run into some inconsistency, and whether or not, they would have been none the better for it.  If the principle that underlies plainness in all our deeds and actions is wanting, the adoption of rules, however “scriptural and rational,” will not help us a whit!  If the principle is begotten in the soul, the fruit will follow, as naturally as effect will follow cause, throughout all nature.

The late John Hersey, an itinerant preacher in the Methodist Church, protested very loudly, both publicly and privately, against the extravagance and gaiety of the Methodists in their churches, houses, and dress.  He was everywhere praised and held in esteem as a very good and pious man; but few, if any, regarded his views in respect to the things he so earnestly protested against.

I suppose both he and Wesley continued to break the bread, and drink the cup, with the people they so severely censured, thereby showing before God and man that they were one body with them.  If they were shepherds, who entered in through the door into the fold of Christ, and set their flock a good example by going before them when they led them out, then a very large portion of their flock could not have been sheep.  Christ said, “The sheep follow him, for they know his voice.”  Then, if they did not follow, they could not have been sheep.  If they were such shepherds, then they had the binding key of God’s word, and when they proclaimed the things they did, they bound their disobedient members on earth, and they were bound in Heaven also.  But how inconsistent was it in them thus to bind them with the word, and then to turn about and greet them as brothers and break the bread with them; professing thereby, before God and the world, that they are of the same body and spirit.  Paul said, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?  The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?  For we, being many, are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.”  Paul did not pretend to say that this bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ, or that it is the communion of that body and blood. [21]  But it is the symbol, or represents that they are in communion with God and His Son Jesus Christ, through the merits of this blood and broken body.  And as we, being many, are all partakers of this one bread, so we, being many individuals, are one body, and all partakers of, and in fellowship with, Christ by his broken body.  Why would these men have excluded a common drunkard, or fornicator, from their communion-table?  Evidently because they would have thought, by partaking with them, they would make themselves partakers of their sins, and would be guilty of hypocrisy in testifying to the world what they do not in their hearts believe.  But, if the Word of God gives them authority to denounce such practices as they did, and Wesley thought it brought them under blood-guiltiness, what more right had he to commune with the one than the other, or to make distinction because one was a decent sin, and the other an indecent one?  By administering the bread and wine to them, he bade them God speed, as plainly as any act he could do; and John said, “He that biddeth them God speed is partaker of their evil deeds.”  Wesley made a distinction between people of rank and in office, and others.  The former were allowed to put on gold, and wear costly and fashionable apparel.  But doesn’t the whole Word of God declare that God is no respecter of persons?  I can see no authority for any such distinction.  Where do such things as the extravagance and vanity here spoken of come from?  Is the devil not the author of it?  And did not these men, by their protestations, admit that they believed it to be his work?  Then they saw the wolf, but they fled!  True, they cried out “Wolf, wolf,” but still they fled, and did not stand by and deliver the sheep.

[20] In the quote cited, Wesley praised the Quakers, said that he should have been as firm as they were, and said nothing about their being inconsistent.  Musser inexplicably drew a different conclusion.

[21] Musser is obviously writing from his own denomination’s interpretation of the passage.