Proposition 7

A change of views, though it necessarily comes first, is in no case equivalent to, and should never be confused with, a change of state.

In all the relationships of life, in all conditions or circumstances of people, we recognize the truth of this; and I wish our readers could see as clearly what is infinitely more important to them—that no change of heart is equivalent to, or can replace, a change of state! A change of heart results from a change of views, and whatever can bring about a change of views can bring about a change of heart or feeling, but a change of state always requires something more.28

Lavinia was Palemon’s servant and once thought him a harsh master. She changed her views of him, and her feelings toward him also changed; still, however, she remained in the state of a handmaid. Palemon first offered her his heart, then his hand, and she accepted both. He vowed, and she vowed before witnesses, and she became his wife. Then, and only then, was her state changed. She was no longer a servant—she was now a wife. A change of views and feelings led to this change in state; but note that this might not have resulted in a change of state; for Maria, another handmaid of Palemon, changed her views of him and her feelings toward him as much—indeed, more than Lavinia did; yet Maria lived and died Palemon’s servant maid, while Lavinia did not.

William Agricola and his brother Thomas, both Canadians, were once strongly opposed to the established government of New England. They both changed their views, and naturally, their feelings changed as well. William became a citizen of Rhode Island; but Thomas, despite his change of heart, lived and died a colonial subject of a British king.

John and James Superbus became bitter enemies. They remained unreconciled for many years. Eventually, a change of views brought about a change of heart; but for more than a year, this change was hidden in the heart and did not appear in any outward action. They were not reconciled until mutual concessions were made and promises of changed feelings were offered and reciprocated. From enemies, they became friends.

A thousand examples could be given to show that although a change of state often—indeed, generally—results from a change of feelings, and this from a change of views, a change of state does not generally follow and is something quite different from, and cannot be identified with, a change of heart. Similarly, in religion, a person may change their views of Jesus, and their heart may be changed toward Him; but unless a change of state follows, they remain unpardoned, unjustified, unsanctified, unreconciled, unadopted, and lost to all Christian life and joy. It has been shown that these terms describe states, not feelings; conditions, not character; and that a change of views or heart is not a change of state. To change a state is to enter into a new relationship, and relationship is not sentiment or feeling. Some act, then—constitutional, by proposed stipulation, sensible, and manifest—must be performed by one or both parties before such a change can be accomplished. Therefore, always in ancient times, the proclamation of the gospel was accompanied by some instituted act proposed to those whose views were changed, by which their state was to be changed, and by which they were to stand in a new relationship to Jesus Christ.

This brings us to “the obedience of faith.” From the time God’s message of love was first announced, there was an act of obedience proposed in it by which believers in the message were put into actual possession of its blessings, and by conforming to this act, a change of state followed.

To understand what this act of faith is, it must be noted that where there is no command there can be no obedience. These are related terms. A message or proclamation without a command cannot be obeyed. But the gospel can be obeyed or disobeyed, and therefore it contains a command. To prevent anyone from hesitating on such an important matter, we will prove,