WRITINGS
Lectures on the Church
of God
Lecture 1. "ONE BODY"
Eph. iv
The subject on which, with the Lord's help, I propose to
enter tonight is the one body, the body of Christ; and this too not only as a
great doctrine which the Holy Ghost has laid down with the utmost clearness,
and throughout a considerable part of the New Testament, but also, as far as I
am able in a short space, deducing some of its practical consequences, and
showing its bearing upon the communion and the conduct of every member of it,
that is, of every Christian.
But in order to develop the special
characteristics of Christ's body, it will be necessary to explain how it
differed from that which God revealed or set up in past dispensations; for
there are distinctions, and even contrasts, between the past dealings of God
and that which He is now accomplishing to the honour of His beloved Son. While
there was of course always the only true God: while He had in times past those
He loved upon earth; while He ever wrought by His Spirit; while there was
necessarily faith at work in order to the blessing of souls; yet for all that
there are essential and deeply important differences, which, none can overlook
without loss to himself, without sure weakening of his testimony to others,
and, above all, without coming short of the just perception of what God Himself
has nearest to His own heart - His own glory in Christ.
Now it is
perfectly plain, if we take up the Old Testament, that when man fell into sin
God gave certain revelations of blessing, all of which find their centre in the
Lord Jesus. We see this from the very beginning of Genesis. When sin entered,
not only righteous government but grace instantly followed. God was there; and
in the presence of the guilty pair, and in defiance of the serpent, the mercy
of God spoke of that same blessed One of whom we are about to bear further and
deeper glories. In due time God brought out, in a distinct and personal manner,
blessings in connexion with Abraham and his seed. There we have the domain of
promise not only revelation of mercy, but distinct promise to a given person
and to his seed. This had not been the case in the garden of Eden. Man fell
there; and it is evident that fallen man could not possibly be the object of
the promise of God. There are promises for such: there could not be a promise
to such. When Abraham received the promise, he was not a fallen man merely but
a believing man. It was as one elect, called, and faithful, that God made him
the depositary of promise. But it was when Adam fell, before there was anything
of the operation of divine grace in him; it was when he and Eve had completely
separated themselves from God, that mercy, entirely irrespective of their
condition or desert, held out a revelation of grace in the person of Christ.
The woman's Seed was presented more particularly as the destroyer of him that
had wrought this deep and, as far as it went, irreparable mischief, irreparable
to the creature, but only furnishing the opportunity for. God to bring out His
own grace to the glory of Him who, bruised Himself, was to bruise the serpent's
head.
The effect of the promise to Abraham was that a family was set
apart unto God, and, in due time, a nation. Next, we find that, as this nation
was full of confidence, in its own powers, God was pleased, in the wisdom of
His ways, to try them by the law, as we all know, given at Sinai. I need not
enter into the details, but just state the general outline of the divine
dealings for the purpose of clearing my subject. But the issue of that trial,
however long God might delay, was not doubtful for a moment; for at the very
mountain where God spoke, the children of Israel set at nought the authority
and the glory of God, and bowed down to the work of their own hands: that is,
the law, as a moral question between God and man, was overthrown from its very
foundations at the outset. God lingered - long lingered - in patience, and
meanwhile brought out His ways in every possible variety. The crowning
experiment of all was the - presence of Christ, the Seed of the woman, and the
Seed of promise, too; for now came the person who answered to all the
revelations and promises, the ways and types and prophecies of God. He came, in
whose person was found all that was worthy of God, and that was suited to man.
But the coming of Christ brought out the awful truth, not only that man is
himself corrupt, depraved, and loves his own will, but that he hates goodness -
yea, divine goodness - in a man. He is the enemy of God when manifesting
Himself in the most blessed manner - in His own Son; when manifesting Himself,
not only in power for we can understand a guilty creature alarmed at holy power
- but in perfect love, coming down in humiliation, putting Himself at the foot
of man, beseeching man; for this is in truth not a figure or exaggeration of
man's mind, but God's own word. Hear His description of it: "God was in
Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto
them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now, then, we are
ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech by us," etc. His love
beseeching sinners was the attitude of divine grace in the person of Christ.
What was the result? That man proved there was no possibility of extricating
himself by any means that God put at his disposal: that if it were a question
of man's delivering himself, no matter what might be the mercy or the blessing,
no matter how deep and full the grace displayed in a living person, man was too
far gone - nay, so truly dead in sin, that, far from being won by God's love,
he only took advantage of it, and when Jesus put Himself at the foot of man, he
lifted up his heel and trod on Him, the Son of God. But if man thus, under
Satan's malicious guidance, cast out and crucified Christ, God in the cross not
only demonstrated His love (herein is love, indeed) but wrought out redemption,
a work suited even for those that crucified Jesus, capable of blotting out the
foulest sin man was ever guilty of. God has triumphed where man did his worst
against Him.
But this is not all. In the previous dealings of God,
when He had given His law, God had separated the nation that was called out of
Egypt - had marked them off in the most distinct and positive manner from all
others. It was needful. Men might have complained that there had been no fair
trial; the corrupt examples of others would naturally lead astray. God set
Israel apart by their institutions, rites, ordinances, services, and His law;
and by that law, and by those rites, He severed them from all others; so that
it would have been sin against God for a Jew to have communion with a Gentile,
no matter how godly and disposed to respect the law of God. No doubt there
might be such a thing as being brought out of Gentilism, at any rate to a
certain extent; but still, all through the system of God's dealings by His law
with the Jewish people, there was the express and total severance of His people
from all the nations. I do not speak of the abuse of it, working upon the
corrupt heart of man against others - the pride of men's heart who despised
others because of their own divinely isolated position; but apart from the evil
use that Israel made of their separation, faithfulness to God then required it,
and His will was in the thing itself. God was proving before the whole world
the painful and humbling truth, that let a nation have ever such mercies, ever
such privileges, ever such wisdom directing their movements, outward and inward
- nay, everything pertaining to them, the issue of all is increasing enmity
against God Himself
The death and resurrection of Christ introduced a
new thing in every sense. Now, Christians admit this in general as to the work
of Christ in its application to the need of the soul. There is no person of
ever so little spiritual intelligence, who does not confess, with more or less
clearness and thankfulness of heart, the all-importance of the cross of Christ
for his need before God. There may be a scanty perception of the extent of the
deliverance, an interrupted and feeble enjoyment of the perfect peace that has
been made by the blood of Christ's cross; but there is no believer who does not
in some measure hold it and enjoy it, and thank God for it.
But there
is more than the sinner's need met in the cross; and I direct your attention to
what the Holy Ghost gives us in Eph. ii., as showing the place of the cross in
the ways of God - not merely in the salvation of the soul. At the 13th verse it
is written, "Ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of
Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the
middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity,
even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of
twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God
in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." Now, it is
evident from this scripture, that the cross is not only the basis of peace for
the soul, but the foundation also on which rests the "one body" that God is now
making of Jew and Gentile before Himself. And we see this most plainly if we
only look back to our Lord's own presence on earth. He forbids His disciples
going into the way of the Gentiles - forbids their entering any city of the
Samaritans. Need it be said that it was from no lack of love? It was not that
His heart did not yearn over the most reprobate of Samaritans; it was not that
He did not appreciate the faith of a Gentile -He had not seen "such faith, no,
not in Israel." Notwithstanding, they were to go only to the lost sheep of
Israel, because to such only He was sent, and so were they too. Now, here we
find at once that, while there was this perfectness of grace in Christ, the
holy order of God was none the less fully maintained. Law claimed a state of
things essentially different from what we have described in Eph. ii. There was
a positive barrier even during His lifetime, the very thing being formally
prohibited, which, after He died and rose, was not merely a duty, but the
delight of love, the only adequate answer in the saints to that death and
resurrection. (See Matt. xxviii. 19.)
How comes this to pass? On what
is so mighty a change founded? On the cross. It brings out the worthlessness of
man, and most of all, the worthlessness of favoured, privileged, religious
man-of man under God's law. For if man under that law failed, what other law
could avail? The law of God was the wisest, the best, the most holy and just
dealing that it was possible to bring to bear upon man's natural state. And
here was the total failure of man; and God well knew it all from the first, for
He took care that in the earliest book of Scripture, and all through, embedded
in the very law itself, there should be plain words as well as shadows, showing
that man would sin, and that only Christ, by His blood-shedding and His death,
could avail. The very first revelation of the garden of Eden is a witness of
both. Faith had no other expectation. But nevertheless there was a full,
patient, long-suffering trial whether it was possible to get any good out of
man, in the dealings of the only wise God with man. And now it was demonstrated
in the cross that all was ruined in man, and that the highest advantages, short
of God's saving grace, brought out the ruin most distinctly. Now there is room
for grace to work; and, beloved friends, it is upon this that it is my joy to
speak a little to-night.
We have come down the stream; we have seen
what man was when it was a question of his working for God : we shall now look
- briefly at God when He puts forth His glorious power to work, not merely for
man, but for His Son; for A oh! we never the full blessing until we see this
great and glorious truth, that God has at heart His Son - that God is thinking,
not merely of a blessing for you, for me, for any of those that love Him - yea,
and in sovereign grace, for those who love Him not, if they repent and believe
the gospel - but that He has His eye upon Him who did all and suffered all for
His glory, and has bound up that glory of God with fullest, richest,
everlasting blessing of all who believe in His name. And now, then, as the
fruit of the cross of Christ (where we have the weakness of God, where
nevertheless we have the triumph of God - God Himself coming down lower and
lower still in love, not merely, so to speak, beseeching man, but laying all
the weight and burden of sin upon the Lord Jesus, thereby meeting the desperate
need of sinners by His Son suffering for them,) what do we find? That in the
cross He has given the death-blow to sin; He has "put away sin by the sacrifice
of himself," as we are told. But besides, by it all the distinctions of, Jew
and Gentile pass away, and God brings out that to which He had looked onward -
that which was in His counsels not only from the foundation of the world, but
before it, and which consequently He had shown before there was a question of
law, and before there was a question of sin. For it is remarkable that the
magnificent type, which the apostle applies in Ephesians v. to the mystery of
Christ and the church, was brought in before sin entered. (Gen. ii.) In truth,
it was a counsel that flowed out of what God was and is. It was God in His own
love, even God working from what was in Himself. No doubt, the entrance of sin
has given occasion for God to bring out His grace in blessed ways; but, for all
that, we must ever remember that there were thoughts and counsels of grace in
God Himself There was that which He ever had in His own mind, for the
revelation of which, no doubt, sin might furnish the fit occasion. But sin was
in no wise the suggestive spring any more than the measure. On the contrary, we
see God indulging, so to speak, in the activity of His own perfect love; at any
rate, we see Him thinking of, filled with, working for, His own Son. And I
think it is of deep interest to observe the fact just referred to - the shadow
of the church's union with Christ preceding the entrance of sin and the
provisions of grace in view of sin.
And observe further, that as just
seen in the type of Genesis, so it is in the epistle to the Ephesians. where is
it that you have the counsels of God traced out ? Is it after man's sin has
been portrayed in chapter ii.? No; but in the earliest verses of chapter i,
where God gives the richest development of the counsels of His grace, entirely
passing over and ignoring, in the first instance all question of man's sin,
shame, and need. This we have afterwards and in the profoundest way. There is
perhaps no part of the word of God which shows us the depth of human evil more
than Ephesians ii.; but this is not at all the first thought. Hence we find in
the first chapter, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ,
according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that
we should be holy and without blame before him in love." And then it is
only just by the way that the apostle alludes to the fact of their sins, and in
a single verse (the 7th), where we read, " In whom we have redemption
through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his
grace." With the exception of that incidental notice of the fact of our
needing redemption, the remission of sins, you would not know from the first
chapter of the epistle that the saints of God, these blest ones, had a single
evil, or a particle of sin connected with them. That is, it is God perfectly
acting from Himself, in and for His own Son; delighting in Him, putting honour
upon Him, giving Him what was suited to Him out of His own resources of love,
and hence boundlessly to the saints, the body of Christ, as the end of chapter
i. describes them. It is thus that the Holy Ghost is pleased to introduce these
astonishing counsels of grace.
Then, in the second chapter, we have
man's state looked at most thoroughly. We see him weighed and found wanting as
in no other part of Scripture. We have him here, not as an active being, alive
in sin, but as all over with him, dead in sin -"dead in trespasses and sins."
He is, therefore, hopelessly lost and utterly powerless in sins. The whole case
is closed against him; and it is to this condition of manifest moral death and
subjection to Satan, that the grace of God applies itself, in His quickening,
raising, heavenly power in Christ Jesus.
But, again, we find that in
the latter part of Ephesians ii. the cross of Christ is taken up, not merely in
connexion with God's counsels, as in chapter i., nor even in view of their
desperate need who are the objects of His counsels, as in the beginning of
chapter ii., but in contrast to the previous ways of God upon the earth. He is
addressing Gentiles. Was it not a suitable occasion for God to unfold to them.
the one new man, the mystery of Christ and the church, the body of Christ? They
were hitherto ignored, evidently outside all that God had been doing of old.
God had taken up a separated people and had tried them. The Gentiles were as
non-existent, so to speak, before God. Not, of course, that the secret
providence of God did not watch and work - not that the grace of God did not
act as to individuals; but, regarded as Gentiles, they were outside. But now
these are the very objects of heavenly grace; toward Gentiles the call goes out
loud and large. Not that they alone were brought into the church, for it
consists of Jews also; but it was Gentiles whom it seemed meet to God to bring
into relief, in contrast to the condition in which they were once, so as to
make more manifest the blessing which His grace now confers on both, in Christ
the Lord. "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the
flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision
in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ , being
aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of
promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: but now, in Christ
Jesus, ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For
he is our peace, who hath made both one."
There we have another
fact, not only that they are made nigh to God but both made one - Jew and
Gentile that now believe made one body, as is explained more fully afterwards,
the middle wall of partition broken down, the enmity abolished in His flesh,
" even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to make in
himself of twain one new man." It is not merely a new life, but Christ and
the church form one new man, a condition of things that had never before
existed -"one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto
God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby : and came and
preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh." Thus
the Gentiles had been dispensationally afar off, the Jews were comparatively
nigh; but now they were taken completely out of their old condition. It is not,
you will observe, that the Gentiles who believed are raised up to the level of
the privileges which the Jews used to possess, but that there is now "one new
man," wherein is neither Jew nor Gentile. Both, consequently, quit their
previous states for a new and most blessed position of oneness in Christ, which
had never existed before save in the counsels of God.
Here then is the
church, the body of Christ; this is what God is working out. He is not only
saving souls, He is gathering; not only is He gathering into one, but He makes
the believing Jew and Gentile, while they are on earth, though previously by
His own command the most separate, now to be one new man in Christ, even His
one body.
There is another truth connected with the church,, revealed
at the end of the chapter, which I merely notice by the way. Not only is there
a body formed - one body in Christ, but there is a building, upon earth, in
which God dwells. Although it is not my business tonight to take up the subject
of the dwelling or habitation of God, yet I cannot deny myself the joy of
saying a few passing words on this wonderful place which God has given to His
church.
And first of all it is to be noticed, in the Old Testament
there was no such thing as a building or dwelling of God, until there was a
type of redemption. No matter what might be His mercy or condescension to those
He loved, He could not dwell with man until there was a basis of
blood-shedding, by which He could righteously abide with him. Hence, all
through the book of Genesis, for instance, God does not dwell with men; nay, He
never speaks of it or promises it. But the moment the blood of the passover is
shed, and you have Israel passing through the Red Sea - the combined types of
redemption (one answering to the blood of Christ, the other to the death and
resurrection of Christ, in which a complete redemption is set forth in figure)-
immediately you bear of God having a habitation: God could now dwell in the
midst of His people. It is not because the people were better: who could
imagine that ? Look at Israel at the Red Sea; what were they to be compared
with Abraham or Isaac or even Jacob? -Yet He who only visited the fathers can
now dwell among the children, and put this word into their lips," I will
prepare him a habitation." How comes this? Ah, beloved friends, how little any
of us estimate the mighty change and the wondrous effect of redemption,? It is
not a question of comparing . men, or their faith, or their faithfulness. God's
estimate of redemption is the point ; and He shows that if there be only a type
of redemption, He can come down typically, He can then dwell in the midst of
His people. I admit this was only a preparatory thing. There was a visible
token of it, suited of course to an earthly people; but still the great
distinct fact is engraved on Israel's history, as the very centre of their
blessing, that God Himself deigned then to dwell in their midst. (Exod. xv. 2,
13, 17; xxix. 43-46.)
The same thing is found here far more blessedly
for the church on earth. On earth - and mark, not before the cross but since -
God is pleased to make His people to be His habitation. He came down in the
person of Christ, but Christ abode alone as far as the dwelling-place of God
was concerned. "Destroy this temple:" He was the only true temple But when He
died and rose, what then? Redemption was accomplished; and now God could
descend holily, righteously, suitably to His own character and could dwell in
His people. It is not because the New Testament saints are more worthy in
themselves than those of old. He that knows himself and redemption knows that
such an idea is a fallacy and a falsehood; he knows that human nature is good
for nothing as before God; he knows that, in His presence, there is no question
of flesh, or what flesh can glory in, but he that glorieth, let him glory in
the Lord:' But this is not all; not only is there a Lord to glory in, but now
we have actual redemption in Christ through His blood. How does God estimate
the precious blood of His Son ? What does He feel about those on whom that
blood is put by faiththose who are washed in it ? Does He not as it were say,
"I can come now and take my place in their midst?" This is indeed one of the
precious characteristics of the church. It especially is even now the
habitation of God. In virtue of this it is that the church is called the "house
of God.." and His "temple," in different parts of Scripture. But I must not
dwell longer on this because my subject is "the body."
We find, then,
in Eph. iv., that the Spirit of God presses this exhortation, " Endeavouring to
keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Next, He explains, "There
is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all,
and through all, and in you all."
Will it be imagined that this grand
truth of the "one body" does not affect the judgment and conduct of the
Christian as well as his affections? We have been brought, I will suppose, to
the knowledge of Christ; we have found in Him the Son of God, the Saviour; we
rest on Him as our peace before God; we call on Him as our Lord. But have I no
relationship with others on earth ? Am I left here simply and solitarily to
look up to God? Have I to thread my way through the mazes of this world, only
using the word of God with prayer? Let me ask, What are my relationships? Am I
only a child of God with other children of His here and there? What at am I to
feel, as I look round upon those that name the excellent name - that call upon
the Lord Jesus Christ, both mine and theirs? The ONE BODY is the answer. God it
is who forms it for the glory of Christ: it is united to Him. "We are members"
as it is said, "of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." It is not for
you, it is not for me, to define, even in our natural relationships, our
brothers and our sisters. Thank God, we are not asked: God does it; He gives
what suits Him, even if it be only in the domain of earth and flesh. He does
not give us what we might choose: we know our folly in this respect, He assigns
each man a place - puts the high and the low according to His own wisdom. And
in that which He is doing for His beloved Son, has He less to do or less to
teach us? Is God's will of less moment there than in the mere outward world ?
Nay, my brethren, nay: even moral men dispute not the will of God as to natural
relationships. We know what human lust may do - how it may break through every
line of demarcation; but still after all poor man finds even for himself,
without thinking of God, the need and the value of owning the relationships
which have been established in nature here below. Now, is it not a most solemn
thought, and is it not a fact which ought to shame every Christian heart, that
in the church which is so near to God, in that which is the fruit of His own
perfect love, in that which He is creating for the everlasting glory of His
beloved Son, what God orders, what God wills, what pleases God, is regarded as
of infinitely less account to Christians than even their natural relationships
to each other? Is it or is it not the fact ? Is it or is it not a grievous sin
?
How do you account for this ? Whence the terrible triumph of the
enemy ? Why is it that there is such darkness over the whole subject of the
"one body" now? Is it because God has not revealed His mind? What can be
plainer in Scripture? Only a portion of the proofs has been produced from a
small portion of God's word; but what can be clearer than that, founded upon
the cross of Christ, a new condition has been introduced and established of
God? that He is now calling out the Jews and Gentiles who believe, and forming
them into "one body?"- that, as He owns no other body than Christ's, so this is
His will about us, and our obligation to Him, even as it is the evident and
only meaning of His word that speaks of His church? How is it, then, that such
a truth escapes the thoughts of man - that you may search in vain to find it in
writings new or old - that we have, some of us, long lived as Christians, and
many of us once churchmen and dissenters so called, yet all utterly ignorant of
its character? But if so patent, and with such a fulness of truth about it in
God's word, how comes it to have been a forgotten thing among His children?
It is not because there has not been sincerity - "godly sincerity" if
you will - among Christians. But whatever is near to God, whatever is the
present operation of God, is always that against which Satan sets himself with
all his might and subtlety. And this, because it is bound up with Christ,
because it is the special actual will of God for His people. Therefore Satan
seeks to thwart and mar. He does not now try so much to darken other truths,
but he takes up that which most nearly concerns the glory of Christ as now
displayed; whatever that may be at any given time, there is the battlefield,
there the arena, where no means are untried to blind and hinder God's children
from understanding and doing the will of their God and Father. When God is
gathering out His church, then is the enemy's season of active unceasing
effort, to oppose, confound, and obscure all the truths connected with it.
Besides, there is another question. How comes it that Satan finds it
possible to succeed in the face of such evidence as the New Testament affords ?
Alas I the reason of this, too - the moral reason - is evident, The children of
God may be the more readily deceived, because the doctrine of the church, the
body of Christ, brings God too close to us - sets His grace too richly before
our souls - makes us feel (if our souls believe, bow, and enter into it) the
vanity of all things here. Alas, our hearts shrink from the feeling. We
naturally love ease; we like position in this world; we are fond of a little
reputation, it, may not be perhaps in the vulgar world, but in the so-called
church - something, at any rate, for self, something outside the portion of
Christ and the cross. The body is only for the Head, for the glory of God, that
the Son of God may be glorified thereby. Man in nature disappears; his glory
wanes and vanishes; his will is judged as sin. We do not like a doctrine and
practice so peremptory, and withal so heavenly. Men like to do something, and
to be somebody. Man has in himself, whenever this is allowed, that which
exposes him to the power of sin, to the malice and wiles of Satan; and hence it
is, that this great truth was no sooner revealed than it began to fade. There
is no testimony to it whatever in the early fathers, and of course a position
more and more distant and antagonistic as you descend. Take up any writings you
please:-Papists and Protestants, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans,
Calvinists, Arminians - ignore it. It is not that you will not find enough
truth asserted and preached for souls to be saved by; but the bare salvation of
souls is not the whole truth, nor that part of the truth which reveals the
church of God. Were not souls saved before Christ? Was not salvation of the
Jews? Were there not faithful souls before God had a people upon earth? Was it
not so from the very beginning, before the flood and after it? Most clearly and
certainly.
But there comes in another thing which was not true before,
which God had not revealed or established till the rejection of the Messiah,
and for which He had reserved the sending of the Holy Ghost from heaven. Now in
the cross of Christ God has laid a foundation for this new work and is
gathering together out of Jews and Gentiles His assembly, made in Christ one
new man. Man likes to be of importance to himself, and in this world. Just in
proportion as he allows this, he falls a prey to the working of the enemy; and
the more easily does he deceive himself, because up to the cross of Christ
there was room left; for man more or less. His total ruin, his enmity to God,
his hatred of grace in the revealed person of the Son, were never brought out
in their fulness until then. Till then God was not, could not, be known as He
now is. But the only begotten Son declared Him, and this in respect both of sin
and of His righteousness - a new kind of righteousness, which, by all means and
on every side, clears and blesses the guiltiest who now believes in Jesus.
Now, it there is to be a heart growing up into the revelation which
God has made of Himself in Christ according to His grace towards the Church,
the one body of Christ, there must be the judgment of nature, rout and
branch-the judgment of the world in which man arrogates some place to himself.
The church of God is based on the proved ruin of man, and is for the glory of
God in His Son, as maintained by the Holy Ghost. Now, this will show the
immensely important place of this truth as a matter for the soul both in
communion and in conduct. Away with what does not touch upon practice and the
soul's relationship to God I But the fact is, that so far from the truth of the
church leaving out heart and conscience, intercourse with God, worship and
service, there is nothing which brings them out so much, and binds them so fast
together, save only the truth of Christ's own person; there is nothing more
commanding, comprehensive, and penetrating for the walk or conversation of a
Christian man.
Take, for instance, all the difficulties men gather
from the Old Testament: on what are they founded? I speak now of the legitimate
difficulties - at any rate what seem to be legitimate and authoritative to the
mind of an uninstructed believer. What, after all, is their gist? Reasoning
founded upon Old Testament precept or practice. But is the analogy just I How
can we reason in an absolute way, if there be this "one new man"? - if the
church is a novel special thing which did not even exist then? It is evident
that conduct (for instance, found in a David or a Solomon - in an Abraham, or
an Isaac, or a Jacob) may not apply now, but, on the contrary, be out of
harmony with the ways God looks for in His church. I am not speaking of those
moral landmarks which always condemn falsehood, corruption, or violence: no
Christian is supposed to produce the sin of any of these men to justify his own
evil. I speak of what was right and according to the will of God as then
revealed. The moment the doctrine of the Church, the body of Christ, is seen,
all such reasonings and difficulties have no more a place. God has now His Son
in His presence as the risen man. There could not be such a thing as the body
of Christ till Christ was there, not only as the Son, but as man, the Head of
the body; Christ could not be there as man till the work of redemption was
accomplished. Of old He had the title of the Son of man given, looking onward
to His assumption of humanity, when He who was God and the Son of God became a
real man. But how could He take this place in Heaven ? He was born a man on
earth. He was not a man until He was born into the world. How take this Place
in heaven? Christ was not Head, still less was there the body, the church, till
then. "The church, which is his body," assumes that Christ had become man, and,
more than this, that He is Head, as the risen and ascended man. It is only
after He died, as we know by His own figure of the corn of wheat, that He
produced fruit. (John xii.) But more than that: not to stand upon figures only,
but to take any Scripture that speaks in precise terms upon it, what do we
find? Read the end of Ephes. i."What is the exceeding greatness of his power
to usward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he
wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own
right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and
might, and" dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but
also in that which is to come: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave
him to be head over all things to the church." Thus He has been given to
the church Head over all things; but it is after He was raised from the dead,
and set at God's right hand. The risen man is Head there: even He never was
head till after redemption. He took His place there and thus.
What is
the consequence of that, beloved friends? The body of Christ is heavenly, as
the head of the church is. Man does not relish this - nay, many a Christian man
finds it too high and bard. If he is a heavenly man where is the room for the
pursuits and plans and projects of literature, of science, of politics? Where
are all these things that fill the mind and the appetites and the desires of
men? Are they in heaven? Are warlike schemes - are courtier dreams - in heaven
? You hear no doubt of the battle against the devil, who is turned out of
heaven, as the Lord wars by the angels of His power by-and-by. But I need not
say there is no place in His body for the pride, ambition, or energy of man.
What then is the great idea of the church of God? It is the body of
Christ, after He has accomplished redemption; and consequently, sin, as far as
God's judging the believer, is completely gone, put away in such sort as to
glorify God and justify the believer. Founded upon this, those who believe are
consequently not only born of water and the Spirit, and justified from their
sins by the blood of Christ, but united to Him, their blessed Head, at the
right hand of God. The church of God accordingly does not consist merely of the
redeemed or saints. A " Christian " means more than a "saint"- much more! I am
aware there are many who think it means much less, and would count my doctrine
strange; because they consider everybody in these lands a Christian, and but
very few on earth a saint - perhaps none till they get to heaven. But it is to
me most evident-nothing more certain - that a Christian is a saint, and a good
deal more; and that good deal more is, that he is a saint after God effected
redemption in the blood of Christ; that he is a saint united to Christ at God's
right hand; that he is a saint who has God dwelling in him by the Spirit, for
God now can dwell there. The atoning work is done: the blood has been shed and
sprinkled. God can take up His abode there and does! How do I know it? Because
God has told me so in His word. One may, alas! have poor enjoyment of it - that
is another thing; but the enjoyment of the truth depends upon the measure in
which our souls first rest upon it believingly: even then, unless we judge the
flesh that hinders the realization of it, we cannot enjoy it either long or
much if at all.
God shows then in His word, that the church is the
union of believers - one with Christ, by the Holy Ghost, after He died and rose
and went to heaven. The consequence is, that we must consult what God enjoins
on the members of that body, if we would know how we are to walk and worship;
how we are to act and feel towards the other members of Christ; and how to
behave in "the house of God."
The New Testament occupies itself with
these subjects, more particularly the epistles of St. Paul. It could not be
formally or definitely in the gospels, because they are devoted for the most
part to a living Christ, closing with the facts of His death, resurrection, and
ascension. You may find there preparations for the new work and testimony - not
a few intimations of what was going to be done; but all show that the building
of the church was not yet begun. In the epistles, on the other hand, we have
revelations altogether founded upon the great fact that the building was going
on, the body was being formed. And mark another thing, which I hope to develop
on the next occasion I address you, namely, that along with the body of Christ
goes the presence of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. It is only just
referred to here to show the connexion: we shall find its importance
afterwards. Those who have not examined fully the testimony of Scripture will
feel the weight and value of the instruction there furnished, when that point
comes more at, length before us. But this at least is plain, that though it is
a new work, entirely distinct from all that God bad wrought before, there are
great moral principles, as already hinted, which always abide. In every part of
Scripture, in that which speaks of the times before the law, or during the law,
as well as now under the gospel, God is the righteous, holy, almighty, faithful
One, a God of longsuffering, and goodness, and truth: all this remains. Even
here the difference is, that all these attributes of God shine out more
gloriously, and, in consequence, deepen the revelation of God, in addition to
other new ways and workings of grace which were not and could not be expressed
before. What an accession of light when Christ, the true light, shone! What an
infinite display of God Himself in His person? And what shall we say of the
cross and death, resurrection and glorification of Jesus as the manifestation
of God?
Hence, in this new man, all the moral glory of God of course
abides; but now, in presence of that infinitely fuller manifestation, and the
accomplishment of eternal redemption, is there to be no answer in the thoughts
and hearts and ways of His children to what the God and Father of Christ is
doing? If, for instance, God calls a person into the place of a servant, there
are certain responsibilities that attach to a servant. But suppose these
servants turn out thoroughly unfaithful and end in rebellion, and God says, " I
will have no more of this; I will create a family and adopt children to Myself;
I will bring people, according to My sovereign pleasure, out of the old
condition into this new place." What then? It is evident that to go back to
what was true of the servants might be a most misleading guide when it became a
question of the children; and, in point of fact, it is and must be so. On that
mistaken ground Christians meddle with the world, occupying themselves with
those things that please the flesh and give importance to man. In contrast with
it, God has given us the glorious truth that He has, as it were, but one man
(the first Adam being done with, and pronounced to be ruined, and dead, and
buried in the grave of Christ). We Christians belong to the second Man, the
Lord from heaven. (1 Cor. xv.) There is "one new man," not only in contrast
with old distinctions, but as uniting all, Jewish or Gentile saints, in one
body - His body; for that is the way in which it is presented in Ephesians ii.
The consequence is, that we need, and God gives us, a new revelation;
He furnishes fresh instructions which had no place before. Supposing you had
the New Testament in Old Testament times, what would have been (I will not say
the worth, but) the effect of it then? Perplexing beyond measure! A Jew would
not have known what to do with it. He might have been struck with the wisdom,
beauty, holiness, and love of it all; but how to act upon it and reconcile it
with the law given by Moses, it would not have been possible for him to know.
He would have been commanded by the Old Testament to keep wholly apart from the
Gentiles; he would have been told by the New Testament that they formed one
body, and that they were all one in Christ,- that both had access by one Spirit
unto the Father. He could not have put these things together; and no wonder:
they were not meant to be together. They belong to distinct times and to
totally different states. The confusion of the two is one way in which Satan
has triumphed in the professing church. Alas! it was not otherwise under God's
dealings with the Jews. While He was standing by His law, they were breaking
it; while He was holding up the unity of the Godhead, they were set upon idols
and going after the gods of the nations. They were utterly unfaithful to their
testimony; but I am persuaded that a Jew, dark as he was and little versed in
the mind of God, would have perceived that the instructions of the New
Testament were irreconcilable with his calling. But God never gave it thus.
When the work of atonement was finished on the cross, God brought out these new
revelations by degrees. Why? Because there was a new state of things-"one new
man"- that did not exist before. Consequently, a new word of God was given,
suited to bring out the due relationship of Christians to one another, and the
working of God in the Church, the body of Christ.
Let me notice
briefly, before I close, the practical effect, endeavouring to keep the unity
of the Spirit in the bond of peace." What interest this has, if really
applicable in the face of our divisions! Consider for a moment the case of a
Christian; he is awakened, finds peace, but questions what he is to do. How
truly it has been the fact that many of us have been perplexed in such
circumstances! We may have known very little of the word of God; but still we
found difficulties in reconciling that word with what we saw around us -
especially such a word as this, "endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit,"
But it is really a plain and humble path. I have nothing to do with making the
unity; I have not to set up something, or join what others make. What then ? I
am to be diligent in keeping the unity of the Spirit. In other words, God the
Holy Ghost has made a unity; and the business of the believer is to observe
that unity-to keep it. What an amazing relief for a humble soul, that feels his
liability to mistake, in danger of being either too lax on the one hand, or too
narrow on the other!
What is the unity of the Spirit? Where does it
begin and end? What is its nature and character? Scripture tells us that He has
established a unity among men, yet apart from and above them. What is it? The
answer is, It is in the church, which God has made the body of Christ. What a
comfort it is for a believer that he has simply to judge by the word of God
where the unity of the Spirit is! But how? I come to a place, and I am at a
loss to know where to turn. Where shall I find the unity of the Spirit of God?
How do I know it? God has left landmarks; He has given clear distinct light in
His word. I search and see that He is gathering together the children of God
into one; He gathers them unto the name of Christ, assuring them that where
they are thus, He is in their midst. I never get the key to any spiritual
difficulty without Christ. Do I merely look for the unity of Christians? It is
a delusion and a danger without Christ. Christians - where shall I not find
them? In what pit of error may I not discover some stray child of God? If I go
in quest of the children of God, I may easily see them in this form of
worldliness or in that; I may know them unattached here, close and bigotted
there; I may find them gathered together according to human rules, and for
entirely minor objects; I may hear them setting up the names of men, certain
special doctrines, favourite views, as their centres of union. Is this the
unity of the Spirit? What then is His unity, and how is it to be kept? It is
that which He forms for the glory of Christ.
Christians of course are
those that compose the unity; yet keeping it consists not in the bare fact that
they are Christians, but that they are gathered unto Christ - gathered not to
His bodily presence, but unto His name, now that He is in heaven; none the
less, however, for that, but the more counting on His presence with them,
though unseen, faithful to His own word. If I isolate myself where I may thus
meet, I am indifferent to that which was an object of the death of Christ (John
xi. 52), and I am setting at nought the unity of the Spirit; if I value the one
and am diligent to keep the other, I shall meet on that ground and on none
other. Many members of Christ no doubt are elsewhere now, who ought to be
there, as truly as any that are gathered to that name; but am I who know my
Master's will to hold aloof, because others see it not, or are faithless if
they do I Am I to say His will cannot be done?
Therein lies part of
the ruin of Christendom; there is the painful fact, that what Christ died for
Satan has set himself to oppose, and has succeeded in it. Wonder not; for
everything that God undertakes is first of all put into man's hand, who is
responsible to use it for Him. Alas! there is but one issue - the utter failure
of man; and there will be no reversal of the tale till Jesus comes again. Nay,
even then will be another trial of man - to show whether he uses the coming and
kingdom of Jesus for God's glory; and the end of the millennium will prove
that, as it was before, so it will be then. Nevertheless, faith overcomes at
all times. See that you hold the truth fast Let none cheat you out of the
blessing which God has given, and calls you to enjoy. Founded on the cross,
united by the Spirit to Christ, waiting for His return, the church is the
precious fruit of God's grace.
After His people departed from the
power and even let slip the bare form of this great truth, He has brought it
before them anew. I cannot doubt that its recovery, in any measure, is
vouchsafed of God in view of the Lord's speedy coming: else how do you account
for it that God has been pleased to recall the bride to put herself, as it
were, in readiness for the Bridegroom, signally bringing out again that mass of
heavenly testimony which had been despised, deserted, and forgotten ? Happy are
they who not only bow and receive the grace of God in it but keep the treasure
faithfully! "Behold, I come quickly; hold that fast which thou hast, that no
man take thy crown." Be assured, brethren, that we are in the same danger
as men ever were in of letting slip that which God has given us; and that every
engine which Satan can devise to drag us away-taking advantage of carelessness,
difficulties, trials, or anything that can tax us to the utmost - will all be
put in force, because be hates not only us but Christ and His truth.
But as the Lord has been pleased to raise up again a testimony to His person,
work, and heavenly glory, so I pray and beseech you, especially the younger of
my brethren and sisters who are here - all who may not have felt its force and
preciousness - more particularly you who have been trained from your earliest
perceptions of truth, brought in, as it were, rather than out, at comparatively
little cost, and who have not known (as some others) the wrenching of many a
tie, with a deep disciplinary work in the heart, realizing gradually the true
condition of Christendom;- I call upon you all to beware lest Satan should, in
any insidious way, lead you from the only solid divine rock in the midst of the
rising surges of apostasy. Fully do I admit, that all who are brought into this
glorious place, the body of Christ, ought to walk and carry themselves in a way
suitable to such a position. It is a deep shame where there is no devotedness
beyond what existed before this further measure of truth dawned on our souls;
not only shame to us, but a serious hindrance to the truth, and a reproach upon
the grace of God that revealed it and brought our souls into it, that after all
there should be such an unworthy manifestation of its power. But how are we to
deal with this ? Are we therefore to slight or doubt the truth? Are we because
of our unfaithfulness, to put aside the plain word of God that condemns us for
a lower ground on which we can rest more consistently and comfortably? Are we
to yield to that which the fleshly mind has often sought and fallen into - to
set up other centres than Christ, other ministry than that of the Spirit? Are
we to abandon the only place and principle which the New Testament allows for
the members of Christ's body, on the unbelieving plea that, as to walking
according to this heavenly light, it is a thing impracticable in such a world
as this ? There are beyond question difficulties and perils neither few nor
small in maintaining it There is constant need of self-denial most surely, if
it is to be walked in with God.
But how are we to judge, if not by the
word of God? Are we prepared to surrender His word as our only standard of
judgment? Now, while that word of course condemns deeply the shortcomings of
those who are thus privileged of God - not only brought into the unity of the
Spirit, as all saints are, but brought into the conscious knowledge and faith
of it; while the failure of such is in a certain sense more inexcusable than
that of any others, yet at least such are justifying God and His word and
Spirit against themselves in a humbling way. Taking our stand upon this, that
no one should glory save in the Lord, we shall find (and painfully too) that we
are brought into this place to learn our faults as we never knew them - the
shortcomings of others as we never suspected them. We may be astonished at the
manifold failures, trials, hairbreadth escapes, and deep occasions of shame;
but how come these to be so seen and felt? Because it is not the ground of the
church? Nay, but because it is. And one of the most comforting things to our
faith in that which naturally might perplex is, that we learn the present and
permanent value of the Scriptures as we never proved it before. Take all the
ways of God in discipline: they did not apply while we were mixed up with the
world-church; but how precious, profitable, and indispensably needed when we
endeavour to keep the Spirit's unity! Take again all the warnings about the
world: we hardly knew what it was. Is it not with Christians a constant
question what the world is; or is not the answer that they give us the proof of
an unsuspected blinding influence ? They have something or other which they
avoid doing, and this they call "the world." But the moment we see the body of
Christ, the world acquires a plain meaning: if we realize what it is to be
among those it within, those "without" are no longer a vague uncertain
question.
Let us not fear then to quit all for the honour of God in
this world; let us look to Him for grace that we may bear all rather than
abandon it. There may be only two or three ; but yet if they contemplate the
body of Christ, shutting out none save according to His will, not for any
feelings of their own, it is the only thing that is or ever was divinely large
in this selfish world, as far as men are concerned. I do not mean that any who
blaspheme Christ, or who make light of blasphemers in their deeds, if not in
their words, - should be sanctioned. "0 my soul, come not thou into their
secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united." It is vain
to argue that the Spirit's unity can make so light of Christ and His glory. I
say not that individually such may not be Christ's. We know what Satan may do
even with one who really loves the Lord-how he may ensnare him into denying his
Master, and denying Him with oaths too; but who would contend for justifying
such sin or having communion with the guilty, till it was put away?
I
repeat then, if there be only two or three, and they endeavour to "keep the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," with them is my place as a
Christian. My heart should go out to every Christian, in whatever
circumstances, whether nationalist, dissenting, or, if there be such, in
popery; my heart should go out, spite of the error and evil - yea the rather
because of these things in intercession. But then am I to give up diligent
observance of the Spirit's unity? Am I to follow and join them in what I know
to be unscriptural and sinful, because there is a Christian or many Christians
there? Surely not! We ought to get them out with and for the Lord. How is this
to be done? Not by plunging ourselves into the mud, but on the contrary by
taking our stand resolutely on the rock outside of it; and there seeking grace
from God that, by the manifestation of the truth in every man's conscience, and
by holding out the light of Christ in the word - pressing too the
responsibility of walking as Christ's body on His members, they may be turned
from the error of their way. Never deny that they are members of the body of
Christ; remind them of that very fact and of its gravity that they are members
of His body: why should they value any other body? If members of that "one
body" why not own it, and own it always, and nothing else? If they belong to
the unity of the Spirit, why not endeavour to keep it? God is now raising a
question, not about Popery and Protestantism, but about Christendom's denial of
His church, Christ's body. Our business is not to originate a church of the
present or future, but to cleave to the church God has made, and consequently
to confess the sin of all rivals-to repudiate them and come out from them. Let
us put away every human invention in the things of God, and keep ourselves from
idols. The word of God at all times calls upon His children to be subject to
Himself and to His will. Are we so doing? On the one hand, "If ye know these
things, happy are ye if ye do them;" on the other, "To him that knoweth to do
good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." Surely, if there be one thing in
which more than another, human will is most evidently sin, it is in that place
where God exalts the Lord Christ; where He has sent down the Holy Ghost that He
may be a spring of power in His people's obedience.
Though this be
merely an introductory lecture, and therefore I cannot be supposed to enter
into all the proofs now - only laying down a kind of foundation for the
subjects which we hope to pursue; yet I do trust that enough has been said to
make plain, even to the least mature of those who hear me, the immense
importance of their seeking from God to realize that they are not only saints
but Christians, resting upon redemption, united to Christ, and responsible to
act as members of His body, diligent in keeping the unity of the Spirit and
none other in this world. This is a divine obligation superior to any changes
in the church's state here below. It is no question of numbers, but a duty
always binding, even though there were only two or three who saw the
truth.
Lecture II
"ONE SPIRIT."
I Cor. xii 1-13.
My task tonight is that which
I am persuaded ought to be the business of every Christian man, not in word
only, but in deed and in truth - to assert the rights of the Spirit of God in
the church of God. I say, "to assert His rights;" for I assume here the
personality of the Holy Ghost. It is needless now to give any proofs of this
any more than of His Deity. These truths can be taken for granted, not as if
there were not abundant proofs in the word of God, but because they are at
present uncalled for. But it is another thing, beloved friends, when we speak
of the rights of the Holy Ghost - His proper sovereign action in the church,
flowing from His personal presence as sent down from heaven. On this subject
many find difficulties and obscurities; and great ignorance exists even among
the children of God, and those too who may have been greatly blessed; in and by
whom the Holy Ghost may have acted powerfully for the good of souls. Unless
however we know this truth from God, unless we have it as a divine certainty in
our souls, it is dear that whatever grace may do in giving us practical
subjection, yet there must be much lost if we do not know the special ways in
which it is the will of God that the Holy Ghost, present both in the individual
and in the church of God, should be honoured. On this theme-a large one for a
single discourse - I propose now to enter.
Here too, as in treating of
the "one body," I would show from God's word that which was always true of the
Spirit, and which therefore has no special connexion with the present time, in
order that we may the better discern in what God is now manifesting Himself,
and how it is that Christians - for of them I speak - are apt to be mistaken as
to this. A mistake here is so much the more serious a thing, as it is a
question of duly recognizing a divine person. If we maintain the title of the
Holy Spirit to act as He will in the church, no question is raised about His
work in souls from the beginning. No person intelligently acquainted with the
Scriptures doubts the fact or its importance; neither is there the least
thought, wish, or motive to do so. The Holy Spirit has always been the direct
agent in whatever God Himself has undertaken, If we look at creation, the
Spirit had His part there. If we look again at the elders who obtained a good
report through faith, no believer questions for a moment that it was only by
the operation of the Holy Ghost that man believed then as now. He wrought in
Abel, Enoch, Noah, and in all others whom the Scriptures testify as the line of
saints. So again when God espoused His people Israel, if He wrought in any
especial fashion suited to the display of His glory in their midst, it was the
Spirit of God who was the energetic power behind and within. It was He that
wrought, for instance, from a Moses down to a Bezaleel, from Samson up to
David. When we come to the prophets, it need scarcely be said it was under the
power of the Holy Ghost that holy men of God spoke; the Spirit of Christ made
them to be witnesses beforehand of His sufferings, and of His glories that were
to follow, little as they might themselves understand His sufferings. Thus, in
those who stand for present privileges, there is no disposition whatever to
obscure, but on the contrary to give the fullest value to all that the Holy
Ghost has ever wrought; for in truth there never was anything of God in which
He did not work.
But when we come to the New Testament, a new thing
comes to view. A despised, crucified, depart Son of man was a strange sound.
(John xii 34.) They looked for Christ to abide for ever, and to reign in glory
and righteous blessing upon earth. But gradually, as man and Israel especially
rejected Him, the truth - astonishing to the Jew - dawned more and more, that
He, the Messiah and Son of God, was going to leave the earth. Gentiles, I am
aware, think little of this; but do they therefore show superior wisdom? To the
Jew it was a most startling announcement, and at first sight irreconcilable
with the law and prophets. They had looked for Him, the promised One, and their
hearts delighted in His presence: it was what kings and prophets had desired
most earnestly. God had put the desire into their souls; but now that it was
gratified in His coming, He is going to leave them, to sink down in sorrow and
shame and death - the death of the cross! under man's, ay, and under God's,
hand I And not merely this, but when He rose again - instead of maintaining His
glory from the throne of His father David, and filling the earth with the
blessedness that was foretold, and accomplishing, and more than accomplishing,
all that their hearts had so fondly hoped was just about to dawn and for ever
brighten this world - He was about to leave the world in its darkness; at any
rate, He was about to retire again to the heavens whence He came. But if He was
about to go on high, it was not as He came down; for as the Son of God He had
come down to become man,,the Word was made flesh;" and now as man, risen from
the dead, He was leaving the world to take His place at the right hand of God;
and during His absence on high, He would send down the Holy Ghost in a way
never before known. The Old Testament prepares the heart for a present Messiah,
and the outpouring of the Holy Ghost as the needed appropriate meed paid to the
reign of the Messiah over the earth ; but the Messiah, on His death and
resurrection, disappearing from the view of the world that had cast Him out,
entering into a new and heavenly scene, and the Holy Ghost sent down personally
in His absence to be here while He was there - all this was something wholly
unexpected by the Jew. If Gentiles do not turn aside and wonder at the great
sight, it is certainly not from excess of spiritual feeling or intelligence. We
may find of course the wonder of stupidity; but there is such a thing as no
wonder, just because there is no real thought about it. I believe this is the
reason why, if there be on the one hand the wonder of men who are surprised,
there is a lack of wonder in others because they are too engrossed in earthly
things to be really concerned.
Now this, next to Christ, is the
central truth of the New Testament; but so far from its being the solid ground
on which Christians are now walking, in point of fact all is reduced in their
minds to a mere continuation of the influence which the Holy Ghost has always
exerted. The consequence is, that all men who reject His special presence in
person on earth as a consequence of redemption are driven into the most painful
expedients in order to evade the plainest scriptures. I may just mention one
case: it will perhaps startle some that such assertions should be made, and
especially by a person of large reputation for spiritual knowledge. It will
show where want of faith as to the great truth of the actual presence of the
Holy Ghost in a way never experienced before lands those who oppose it
systematically. In order to escape the clear intimation of a new and
incomparable blessing in the shape of the Comforter, they allege that the Holy
Ghost (who had always been given!) departed from the earth when the Lord was
here, in order that the Lord should give Him once more on His own ascension to
heaven. Thus, the time of the Saviour's presence on earth would be, not a
bright and happy feast, but dearth as regarded the Spirit of God" just name the
- thought, in order that you may see the excessive violence, not to say worse,
to which unbelief reduces even intelligent men of God. Need I say, on the
contrary, that those who surrounded the Saviour and were blessed by His
teaching had all the Old Testament saints ever enjoyed, and a great deal more?
The Holy Ghost had quickened their souls, like their predecessors, by giving
them faith in Christ. Besides, the disciples had the Messiah's presence and the
manifestation of grace and truth in Him, and all His words and ways. No doubt
there was much they could not then bear, as the Lord Himself told them; but
still they were as truly believers as any had ever been before them. The fact
is that such reasoning is the puny effort of man to escape from the solemn
truth of God.
The New Testament is most explicit. Our Lord first of all
brings out the doctrine of the Spirit; and this as fully meeting the need of
man to be born of the Spirit and to have the Holy Ghost, in order that he
should be able to worship the Father in spirit and in truth. But more than
this, He prepares the disciples for the mighty work in spreading the truth and
the grace of God. The Holy Ghost was necessary for this; and accordingly we
have it in chap. vii.- a scripture which it is impossible to escape. The Lord
had put it in a figurative way, that out of the belly of him who believed
"should flow rivers of living water." This spake he of the Spirit," (which
should not be given to a person in order to make him believe, but), "which they
that believe should receive; for the Holy Ghost was not yet (given), because
that Jesus was not yet glorified." Lengthy reasoning on such a scripture would
be a dishonour to the word of God. Where there is an obscurity, we may try to
explain and illustrate; but where the language employed is plainer than any
that could be substituted in its stead, I feel that it is due to Scripture
simply to press that plain meaning.
In the later chapters of the same
gospel again we have our Lord bringing out, not merely the fact that after the
glorification of Jesus the Holy Ghost was to be given, as He had not been
before; but, besides, we have His personal action, when sent and come, entered
into fully and definitely. Hence in John xiv. He is spoken of as the Comforter.
Mark the importance of this. We may reason about the Holy Ghost being given, as
if it meant no more than a spiritual power, but we cannot thus attenuate the
sent Comforter. Who is He but the Holy Ghost Himself? No one can say that
"Comforter" means a miracle, or a tongue, or any operation you please.
Doubtless He works in all these various ways; but it is a real person who
replaces the Messiah when He leaves the earth. Just read a few verses of the
chapter in order that it be made still plainer: "I will pray the Father, and he
shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever." There
again we have what is most evident. Miracles have been; tongues cease;
prophecies and knowledge pass away; but here we have a divine person who abides
with the saints for ever -"even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot
receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he
dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." The world was bound to receive Jesus,
and after an outward manner it had Him there; but here we find One who, not
having become incarnate, could not in any way be brought before the eyes of the
world. I admit of course that the world does not really receive Jesus in a
spiritual manner any more than the Holy Ghost; but still there is a pointed
reference to the manner of the Holy Ghost's presence here below, which excludes
Him from all apprehension on the world's part as an object either of sight or
of knowledge.
Again in John xiv. 26 we read, " The Comforter, which is
the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all
things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto
you." It is not a gift or power or influence merely, but one who is really sent
- a person who teaches all things and brings all the Lord's sayings to their
remembrance. Then in chap. xv. 26, "But when the Comforter is come." It is not
merely in this case "sent" (because some might argue perhaps about the sending
of an influence) but "come." "When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto
you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth [in every way guarding this most
weighty theme], which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: and
ye also shall bear witness., because ye have been with me from the beginning."
Assuredly we have the Holy Spirit's coming presented with solemnity and
distinctness. In the former chapter the Father sends Him in Christ's name; in
this Christ sends Him from the Father. In the one case He is said to bring all
things Christ had spoken to their remembrance; in the other He comes down from
the Son, and bears witness of Him. They had been conversant with Him upon
earth, and were to attest it as witnesses; also the Spirit from Him in heaven
comes down, that there should be as it were these joint witnesses of the Lord
Jesus Christ.
Then in the sixteenth chapter of John we. have the truth
still further unfolded, and, if possible, with increasing energy, as it is
indeed of the deepest interest and importance. In chapter xiv. the Lord had
told them that they ought to rejoice because He went to the Father. He was
leaving a scene of humiliation and suffering to be in the home of the Father's
love and glory. Had their love been simple, had they been thinking of Him, not
of themselves, they would have rejoiced because He was going to the Father. But
now in chapter xvi. He puts it upon other ground: "It is expedient for you [and
not only as it were for me] that I go to the Father." What! expedient for those
poor weak trembling disciples that He had watched over, in the face of all
Israel who despised Him and would not be gathered to Him? Surely under His
wing, He had gathered those little ones, and sheltered them; yea, in the very
hour of His own rejection He had turned His hand upon them. And now He must
leave them. It was expedient for them that He should go to the Father. How
could this be? There is but one answer; and it is the answer that the Lord
gives. It is what in His mind made it expedient Blessed as it was to have the
Messiah, His presence (just because He was a man upon earth with a group of
disciples around Him) was necessarily limited. He could not thus be as man
everywhere throughout the earth. The Holy Ghost had not, like the Son, taken
human nature into union with His person. But more than that, when redemption
was effected, He could in the most intimate way bring into the hearts of the
disciples all the value that flowed from Christ and His work - Christ exalted
to heaven and estimated of God the Father there.
Thus then were the
great foundations of truth laid. The Lord Jesus would not leave this world or
go to the Father, until every question that God had with guilty man was settled
for ever. When sin was put away by the sacrifice of Himself on the cross, when
righteousness was established in Christ risen from the dead and exalted on
high, it was not merely all pure grace as before, but now it became a question
of God's righteousness through the work of the Saviour. The efficacy of His
blood turned the scale in favour of man; for it was the man Christ Jesus who
had thus glorified God about sin. No doubt He was His own beloved Son, the
inestimable gift of His own grace; and man could boast nothing, for He was
despised and rejected of man, hated without a cause. Still, there was the fact
that God had so looked down upon earth, more especially upon the cross, to find
the man who suffered all, that God Himself might be glorified. This truth
changed everything. Now it became a question, so to speak, for God: what could
He do for this blessed man? If He was God's Son, was this a reason why He
should love or exalt Him less? He raises up from the grave the man Christ
Jesus, and sets Him at His own right hand. That was not only a personal act in
honour of Christ, but for believers it is the measure, in infinite grace, of
acceptance which is now theirs in virtue of Him. All heaven was filled with
wonder and praise at the sight of man, made a little lower than the angels,
taken up in the person of Christ far above all principalities and powers to sit
on the throne of God. Yea God Himself from that moment has made it His business
and delight to show His value for the man who, in the face of sin and death and
Satan and divine judgment, retrieved all His character, and brought glory to
His name in delivering, by suffering for, the guilty to the uttermost Before
this man had been the constant public agent in dishonouring God. Never was God
so alighted, insulted, provoked by any of His creatures as by man. Satan , when
he left his first estate, once and for ever forfeited his place. There might
still be a more terrible judgment awaiting him; but there was no mercy - no
beam of hope pierced through the darkness into which sin plunged a fallen
angel. But now, after man had preferred darkness to light, after his manifold
course of rebellion against God was run, the tide was turned in the death of
Christ, and God was placed by His work under an obligation, so to say, to man
to bless him by faith through and in Christ the Lord.
Hence that
expression of which St. Paul is so full "the righteousness of God." If man was
more than ever proved to be lost, God now had a debt to pay. As a part of His
discharge of it, He sets the Lord Jesus as man at His own right hand; He
justifies freely and fully every believer; and He sends down the Holy Ghost in
order that He might be the divine link between that blessed Man in glory and
those who believed in Him, even such as had trembled at the thought of His
departure. What a change there is now! Not only was there spiritual
intelligence now, but power also. Peter, who had denied the Lord, could now
stand boldly forward and say, " But ye denied the Holy One and the Just." They
were all dumb. His denial was completely gone, and I might venture to say with
more glory to the Lord than if he had never uttered it. A positive strength and
triumph glowed in his soul, a knowledge not only of his own weakness and
worthlessness, but of God, of resurrection, and of His grace - a sense of what
Christ was for him that was beyond all he had ever known before, I do not say
beyond grace, unless Peter had done what he did; but surely there was immense
force in his words. They knew well what he had done, Publicly done, in the high
priest's hall, and before people ready enough to see the faults of a disciple.
Yet he who repeatedly and recently denied his Lord was, through abundance of
grace, so full of courage as to stand forth and confront and tell them that it
was they that "denied the Holy One and the Just." His conscience was purged; he
had no more conscience of sins (Heb. x.): all was blotted out that could be
against him before God. Yea he was justified from all things.
This was
merely one fruit, precious as it was; and out of what did it grow? Peter had
been a believer before, and was already born anew: what then was its spring ?
It was part of the result of the great salvation made good in the power of the
Spirit of God come down from heaven, and thus working in Peter. No doubt there
was previous moral exercise, deep penitence for his sins, and the restoration
of his soul; but more than all this followed,- the gift and positive power of
the Spirit. It is here, though not here only, that the church shows its
weakness through unbelief. To the believer it is not a mere negative question
now, but one of real present power; as was said of Timothy - who needed to be
reminded of the fact - that it was not a spirit of fear he had received, but of
power and of love and of a sound mind.
But now we must return to the
great truth: the Lord Jesus, in John xiv. xv. xvi. shows what was to replace
His personal presence upon earth - a real divine Paraclete - He whom we call
the third person in the Trinity. I do not however admire the expression
"second" or "third" person; and for this reason, that it tends to bring in a
subordination in the Godhead where scripture does not. You cannot have a
secondary God. You may bring human reasonings into the subject, and talk about
a son, and his subjection to his father; but therein is the very thing which is
so dangerous, and of which, to my mind, the devil has taken great advantage.
The scripture shows that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is
God; that they are one and all equally Jehovah. Subordination in respect of
Deity is only a means of undermining the proper Godhead of the Son and the
Spirit. The notion of subordination is true only when we look at the place of
manhood the Son deigned to take, or at the office the blessed Holy Ghost is now
filling to the glory of the Son, just as the Son served and will yet reign to
the glory of God the Father.
To return, however - the Lord Jesus tells
us it was expedient that He should go away; -"For if I go not away, the
Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness,
and of judgment: of sin, because they believe not on me; of righteousness,
because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; of judgment, because the
prince of this world is judged." Any particular notice of this scripture is
not the point now, but rather the general truth. This was the twofold purpose
of the Holy Ghost in coming here below. He proves that the world was under sin;
that there is no righteousness here, but only in the Just One with the Father;
and that as to the prince of this world, he is judged - the sentence not
executed but he judged. There was hope for the world with the Jew; but now,
from the point of view in which the Lord speaks of His own going and the Holy
Ghost's coming, the world is evidently lost, and the Spirit here is but its
reprover. Next, this same Holy Spirit should lead the disciples into the truth,
taking of the things of Christ, and glorifying Him. There is thus a double
relation of the Holy Ghost to the world, as a system outside and condemned; to
the saints, whom He leads, telling them of things to come, yea, of all things
pertaining to Christ and His glory. Such is the plain doctrine of the Apostle
John as to the Spirit.
Thence we come to the Acts of the Apostles: is
there anything there that, as a matter of fact, answers to our Lord's promises?
There need not be a doubt. In chapter i. the disciples are with the Lord,
entering but very feebly into that which had filled His heart before He went
away. They were still looking for the kingdom with great things for the earth
and for Israel They were not, it is true, sunk so low as the unbelieving
thoughts of Gentile Christendom - i.e., a millennium without Christ! the shame
of those who boast so proudly in our day; but still they were not far raised
above the ordinary thoughts of Jews. They did not yet enter into the precious
Christian hope, and for this simple reason: the thoughts of the Christian are
the thoughts of heaven. They are the communications of the Holy Ghost that suit
the Father, because centring in the Son and His heavenly glory. Into that
communion we are brought; and truly it is not merely with the prophets and with
their blessed visions of coming glory for the earth, but "with the Father
and with his Son Jesus Christ." But as for the disciples in Acts i the
power of entrance was not yet there, for the Holy Ghost was not personally
come; and yet they had not only life at this time, but life in resurrection.
The Lord had actually breathed upon them the very day He rose, and said,
"Receive ye the Holy Ghost." Of course this was not the gift of the - Comforter
as such, the promised One that was to take the place of Christ upon earth ; but
rather the communication by the Holy Ghost of His own risen life. Therefore, I
believe, did He breathe upon them: a clear allusion to the Lord God breathing
on Adam. Of old it was the breath of natural life given to Adam. Here was One
upon earth who was both Lord and God (as acknowledged by Thomas a little
after), and also the risen man or last Adam, the quickening Spirit.
Accordingly, He communicates this life. as life must always be communicated, by
the Holy Ghost; and therefore it is said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." But for
all that, we know from Acts i. that the Spirit, the Comforter, was not yet
come. Indeed, we ought to gather it from the simple fact, that the Lord was not
yet gone. "And if I go not away, the Comforter will not come."' He was seen
there; and He commands them, when assembled together, that they should not
depart from Jerusalem, but should wait for the promise of the Father' Whatever
the blessing, then, they had received on the resurrection-day, it was not the
accomplishment of the promise of the Father.
The next chapter shows us
the Holy Ghost acting on earth in the absence of Christ; and this in various
ways. It records that extraordinary display of divine grace in the gift of
tongues, which, without removing, surmounted the confusion that man's sin and
divine judgment had brought into the world in the various nations and tribes
and tongues, which have subsisted since Babel to this day. Now the Spirit was
going out with the news of God's wonderful works of grace to all, just as they
were proving that where sin had abounded, grace much more abounded. At the same
time let us not forget that new tongues, although the magnificent fruit of the
Spirit's operation, are not the same thing as His presence; they were an effect
and characteristic sign of a crucified but now exalted Lord, the witness of
gospel grace and its universal testimony in contrast with the law, but not the
same thing as the gift of the Holy Ghost Himself This is exceedingly important,
because the unbelief of some has gone so far as to think and say that if the
tongues exist no more, the Holy Ghost is absent. What blindness to the
Saviour's promise! What a lowering of the Spirit's presence? What denial of
Christianity and the church! The truth is, that the tongues, and the other
powers in which the Spirit of God was pleased then to work, were but the
miraculous tokens that befitted His presence, besides inaugurating the gospel
and the church. It was all a new and unprecedented state of things. When the
Son was on earth, miracles followed His steps and word, as it was only meet,
and the accomplishment of prophecy. Another divine person being come, was it
not suitable there should be proofs of it, more especially as He took no
permanent form, as the Son of God had done, so as to be visible. It was
therefore the more needed that there should be palpable effects and tokens
arresting the mind, and causing the heart of man to weigh what God is and is
doing, not only as displayed in the Son, but as witnessed by the Holy Ghost
present upon earth.
This is the cardinal truth upon which all. hinges
that we find in the great body of the New Testament. There was now before men a
fact without precedent, altogether unknown to the world, if it did not surprise
even those that had been taught by the Lord Himself to expect it - the wondrous
fact that the Holy Ghost bad come down in person, making His presence known by
a signature of gracious power, so as to be then known and read of all men.
Accordingly throughout the Acts of the Apostles you have ever and anon the
testimony not only to His action and its results, but to the glorious truth
that He Himself was there. Look at the first outbreak of the world's religious
rancour in chapter iv., and His answer to it in verse 3 1. Take again the first
public sin and scandal, where Ananias and Sapphira were charged on the spot
with lying not to man but to God. But how was this proved? They had lied to the
Holy Ghost who was there. The standard of judgment was that dishonoured person
who was in their midst. This measure of sin, let me say, is as true
individually as it is in the church. Hence, in Ephesians iv. 30, it is not
merely that you should not violate this or that command, but "grieve not the
Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." Let us
note it well.
The more this is reflected upon, the more its immense
moment will be felt, by the children of God. Supposing you take the presence of
one you most value and delight in, does not his or her coming affect all your
ways and words just in proportion as you realize and love that one's presence?
We might be ever so much at ease; but still, if there be one staying with us,
who draws out our honour and esteem, the influence is felt deeply and at once
except by a stone. Surely one does think of that which will. give pleasure; one
rightly fears to wound; the heart is on the alert and active, and it is a joy
to do that which will gratify those we love. And so in virtue of redemption the
Holy Ghost is here, because as regards each believer all is gone that was
offensive to God; and the saint stands in divine righteousness before God -
become this in Christ. How indeed could the Holy Ghost be away? He must have
His part when that which was most precious to God and man was wrought. If the
Father accomplished His thoughts in and by the Son, could the Holy Ghost be
absent or inactive? And now God had done His greatest work - the atoning work
of Christ. Where therefore the blood of the accepted sacrifice is, the Holy
Ghost not only can work but must dwell. If Christ by His own blood has entered
in once for all into the holies, having found an everlasting redemption, the
Holy Ghost is come to abide with us for ever. All hangs on and is measured by
this. Accordingly the book of the Acts is far more the acts of the Holy Ghost
than of the apostles, important vessels of His power as they were, though not
they only. We have seen, where it was a question of sin, He judges by His
presence and acts upon this ground. We have seen that, when they were in danger
of being alarmed by the threats of man, the Spirit gave cheering evidence of
His mighty presence. It was not merely Peter and John, or anybody else; but the
place was shaken where they were. Whose presence was this, or in whom
particularly? It was the presence of the Holy Ghost, not merely in this or in
that individual, but in the assembly of God. More than that, the Spirit of God
in chapter xiii. of the Acts takes an active place, and sends out Paul and
Barnabas. "Separate me," He says, "Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I
have called them." "So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed." I
am now referring to the case only to show that it is not a question of
miracles, tongues, or powers, but of a real divine person, who was the chief
agent as present in the church of God; and that this personal presence of the
Spirit in man was a new thing, previously unexampled in the plan and ways of
God. (Compare also Acts viii. 29, 39; xv. 28; xvi. 7; xx. 23; xxi. 11.)
Now we come to the Epistles, passing by the scriptures which attest
the Holy Ghost's presence in the individual. All-important as this is, it is
not my subject, but His presence in the church. Hence we must omit the Epistle
to the Romans, which takes up our individual relation towards God, and for the
simple reason that there we are regarded as His children. We are brought out of
the place of wrath and sin, made children of God, and if children, then heirs:
the Holy Ghost gives the spirit of adoption, and fills the heart with hopes of
the inheritance which is to follow. But in the Epistles to the Corinthians you
have not merely the state of man and the revelation of divine righteousness,
with their consequences in sinners and saints, as in Romans, but the church of
God, in a grievous state of sin, shame, and disorder, but still the church of
God. Accordingly the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as there dwelling is shown as
in its capital seat. The portion read (1 Cor. xii. 1-13) developes His action
in the church. What can be plainer? Here we have the Holy Ghost viewed as a
real person present and working in gifts of outward sign, no doubt, as well as
in ways of edification. But whatever might be the form of His action, the great
truth was that He was there and at work in the many members of God's assembly.
The question is, was all this a temporary display, or was His presence for ever
the substratum of it all? Was that which we here read confined to a particular
local assembly and a special epoch long past, or is there anything for us, for
the church of God at large, for this time and all times? The answer cannot be
doubtful, if we are subject to the word of God. Certainly our Lord had in John
xiv. laid down, in contrast with His own temporary absence, that the Spirit of
truth was to abide with His disciples for ever.
But next the First
Epistle to the Corinthians could not open without the Holy Ghost's giving it
the most enlarged application. In the first verse of the first chapter we read,
"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in
Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the
name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." This is not said in the
Second Epistle: indeed I am not aware that there is anything exactly like it
anywhere else in the New Testament Are we to suppose this was a mistake? Let
who will be guilty of such a speech or thought, I trust there is no soul here
that would not denounce it as a sin against God. A mistake in the word of God!
On the contrary it seems to me to be the special wisdom and goodness of the
Spirit who foresaw the unbelief of Christendom; it was the Spirit of God who
knew that this Epistle would be treated as if it were of private application,
as if it belonged to a bygone time and place, and did not appertain to all that
call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ - both theirs and ours. This He has
guarded against at the very threshold, and made such an objection to be plain
fighting against the word of God. Thus it ceases to be a question of opinion.
God has spoken and has written that we may believe Him; and this epistle has a
purposely enlarged scope, so that unbelief as to the perpetuity of the Holy
Ghost's action in the assembly, as long as He and it are here, should be
treated as a sin, as a positive rejection of God's plain word. Is it not
unbelief which makes Dull and void the Holy Ghost's personal presence in the
church?
It is not at all contended that the Holy Ghost necessarily
works in every way as of old, and still less in the same measure of power. In
the latter part of the New Testament we do not read much about miracles - very
I little - less and less too as time passes on. We can understand that, in the
opening of a new dealing of God, there should be, in His goodness, a wonderful
working and display of these mighty answers to awaken the attention even of
careless men. But, as the truth of His presence was established, and the new
communications of God were gradually written, and there was thus not merely the
evidence of outward tokens, but positive scripture committed to human
responsibility, we can easily see that external vouchers were no longer so
requisite, and that the Spirit of God (grieved, as we know, by much found in
those who professed the name of Christ) might gradually withdraw, not Himself,
but the manifestation of mighty signs, and refuse to put outward ornaments upon
that which dishonoured the Lord Jesus.
It is certain and evident, at
least when we come to the churches of the Apocalypse, that we see or hear no
more of the powers of the age to come. Not a doubt have I that there was the
wisdom of God in thus ordering in view of the state of things that. was fast
coming in. I think we can readily discern by spiritual. considerations why it
would not have been suitable to the glory of God to continue those miraculous
powers. Supposing, for instance, God were to work now in the way of miracle, is
it not evident that in one of two ways it must be? Either He must work wherever
the name of Christ is preached and known at all; and what would be the
consequence of this? Miracles in Rome, miracles in Canterbury, miracles among
Presbyterians, Independents, Wesleyans, Baptists, Paedo-baptists, Calvinists,
Arminians, Lutherans: Greek church and all sects and denominations in
Christendom would have their miracles. There may be those who would enjoy the
sight, but I envy them not, Every one here, I trust, would feel deeply the
anomaly of such an outward seal on such a mass of confusion. On the other band,
supposing God were pleased to say that He could not give these tokens of His
power and glory where the church was thus in disorder and rebellion, but must
single out-whom shall I say? It could not be, it ought not to be: God forbid
that we ourselves should desire it, as things are.
But let us for the
moment imagine the Lord looking on any children of God anywhere gathered, and
saying, " I see where My people are subject to My word; and where I find two or
three here and there gathered unto My name, there I will work miracles." What
would be the consequence? We should not know how to behave ourselves, So weak
are we, so foolish, so apt to be full of ourselves, even now in the face of
continual weakness, as well as hatred and contempt, that we should not be able
to contain ourselves if we had these displays of divine power. Besides, what a
slight to those we own to be as truly members A Christ, and as truly indwelt of
the Spirit, as any of us!
I am persuaded then there is perfect grace
and wisdom as to this in the ways of God. He no Longer works thus. But here is
the truth on which I take my stand this night: the Holy Ghost was given, not
merely as a display of power in the earth, but, if I may so say, as both sign
and substance of the divine value for the cross. God the Father gave the Holy
Ghost as the seal of that redemption which is always unchangeably perfect and
infinitely efficacious. I dare to say it, and yet I say it with all reverence,
that if the Holy Ghost were now taken from the poorest and feeblest of His
saints upon earth, it would not be a dishonour to him so much as to the Son of
God and His atoning work. It would be virtually to say that the ruin of the
church has made the blood of Christ less precious; but will God ever confirm a
lie? And here is the stronghold of faith in this we can be confident - not only
that the Lord Jesus has expressed the mind and intentions of God, but that we
through His grace can and ought to enter in measure into its ground, reason,
character, and aim, as well as meaning.
All this we may by faith
appreciate and enjoy, for He has explained it to us. Wherefore indeed is the
word of God given, if it be not that we should understand His mind, feel His
love, and be sure of His truth, wisdom and goodness? Hence we are aware that
God, in sending the Spirit to abide always whatever may be the sorrowful
condition of believers individually and collectively, did not give a mere token
of approving them, but rather the only adequate pledge of His delight in the
personal work of His beloved Son. The Holy Ghost, we know, descended on Christ
when He was upon earth without blood, because He was always sinless, as perfect
here morally as He was and is in heaven, no less absolutely holy as man than as
God. It is not forgotten, of course, that He had yet to be made perfect in
another sense, as becoming captain and author of salvation, and to be
consecrated as heavenly priest. It is clear that there was a work to be done,
and an official place of glory to be taken; but nothing ever did or could add
to His moral perfectness. Hence, I repeat, He could and did receive the Holy
Ghost for Himself as man without blood. But when Christ went up on high, He
received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost. What amazing comfort,
confidence, and rest should this give us! Had the Holy Ghost been given
directly to us, we might well think that, if we did not carry ourselves as we
ought, there might be a revocation. We can understand a soul troubled with such
a thought; but, thanks be to God, the Father gave the Holy Ghost a second time
to Christ. When He went on high, He received of the Father the promise of the
Holy Ghost, and shed forth that which was seen and beard at Pentecost. Thus the
gift is entirely in virtue of Christ., after He had blotted out our sins and
received it as a consequence. There we have the firmest and surest ground on
which the perpetuity of the presence of the Holy Ghost in the saint and in the
church rests before God - His love to Christ, and His estimate of Christ's work
for us, not to speak of His immutable word.
And now for a few
practical words on this before I have done. We shall have other applications
and results of it in subsequent lectures, so that the less may be said now. If
there be a divine person on earth who is now in each saint individually, and
with all as the church of God, I ask, Can this be a secondary consideration? Is
this a truth that can be Subordinated to circumstances? Is it something that
can be pushed aside for the sake of not disturbing oneself or others? Can men
who so think, and speak and act, believe in the reality, of the Spirit's
personal presence and present operation according to scripture? Do they know
that the Holy Ghost is really in the church on earth ? I am not now, of course,
alluding to His divine glory whereby He fills all things, because it is always
true, - as true before Christ came as it has been since, and equally true of
all the persons in the Trinity. But as the Son came down from heaven and was
here a man for some thirty or more years upon the earth but is actually gone,
so now the, Holy Ghost is come down personally to abide with and in us in such
sort as was unknown before, save only in Christ. The Holy Spirit, I say, has
come now to be in us personally; and just as Christ was God's only true temple,
so now the church is the temple of God; for both these truths are taught in the
word of God. But if this be believed, if it be received as God's truth, what
can compare with it in importance as a present practical fact, as well as
privilege, for the saint and for the church? Accordingly the responsibility of
Christians, if we apply it to their meeting, is that their assemblies should be
governed by the truth that the Holy Ghost is there.
But how does the
Holy Ghost work when owned as there? This we have answered, if it were only in
the scripture already read. He distributes, or divides, to every. one severally
as He will. Is His presence then not to be recognized? Is His working not to be
respected? What do we find, if we test the present aspect of Christendom by the
word of God? It is far from my desire needlessly to trouble any one, nor is it
my wish to provoke controversy; but there are truths which manifestly admit of
no compromise: indeed, all divine truth refuses such unworthy dealing. How,
then, I would ask, is it with our souls in the feeling, in the faith, in the
allegiance that we pay to this truth, so vital to the church, so essential to
the right honouring of the Holy Ghost and of the Lord Himself? Do you doubt
that the church of God is in disorder? Where is the serious-minded Christian
that does not own it more or less? Is there a spiritual man who would maintain
that the present, state of the church answers to what we read in the New
Testament? Am I not to feel and to humble myself before God for my own and the
church's sin in this grave matter? Must I not seek to be where the Holy Ghost's
presence is owned? It matters not where I have been ignorantly; I have
doubtless been where there was not even the show of owning His presence and
action according to the scriptures; I may have joined others in praying God to
pour out again the Holy Ghost, as if He were not come and in the church of God.
And do you call such prayer as this a scriptural recognition of His presence?
What can be conceived a more decided or more evident ignoring of the truth that
the Holy Ghost is here? Were it prayed that the Spirit of God might not be
grieved, or that the saints might be filled with Him, it were scriptural. What
would it have been for a disciple in the presence of Jesus to have asked the
Father to send His Son - to raise up the Messiah when the Messiah was actually
there? Is it not the spirit of the world, which cannot receive the Spirit,
because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him? But we know Him - at least we
ought to know Him. Well, if we do know that He is here, is it a light thing
whether or not we are subject to His operation in the church ? It is in vain to
say, " I acknowledge the truth of His presence;" so much the worse, if I am not
subject to the scripture, which leaves no doubt how He acts for Christ's glory.
Mere words do not suffice: God looks for faithfulness for subjection to His
word, for practical recognition of the presence of the Holy Ghost.
We
come together, it may be ever so few: what do we count on? We are weak and
ignorant, but we have One in our midst who knows all things, and is the source
of all power. Are we content with Him? Can we confide in Him in the face of
dangers and difficulties? Why is it that the church is weak? Why is it that
there is such want of power and joy and peace and comfort among the children of
God? Can it be wondered at? What I wonder at is rather the mercy and
astonishing patience of God, blessing &.9 He does in spite of so much
unbelief. Do you really suppose that it can be an indifferent thing to God?
Does He not call for my unhesitating adhesion to His will, duly owning His
Spirit's presence and free action? What about your bowing down to the great
present fact, that in virtue of redemption and in honour of the Lord Jesus, the
Holy Ghost is here personally in the church on earth? This puts the soul to the
test; indeed, it seems to me the great test for Christians. Christ, of course,
abides the practical touchstone for everything and every person; but still if
He is known and valued by my soul as the way, the truth, and the life, is it
nothing to Him that my ways in the church of God should be on the ground He has
given me - faith in the presence of the promised Holy Ghost? Is it not the
truth God Himself presupposes as the very soul, the animating spring, of the
church?
This does not in the slightest degree touch God's working by
individuals. He sends out one to preach the gospel to the world, He raises up
another to edify the children of God. This is another branch of truth; and I
refer to it now only to show that, when we contend for the church's inalienable
obligation to own the presence of the Holy Ghost, this does not in the least
interfere with the individual action of the Spirit in ministry. Granting this
in all its integrity and importance., I would put the question to the
conscience of each before me, Where is there an assembly of God's saints coming
together, and His Spirit left perfect liberty of action that He may employ whom
He will as the vessels of His power? Are there any Christians here present who
never thus find themselves in the only assembly which God's word sanctions ? If
there are , I can only say, Ponder that word with prayer, and ask your soul how
comes this? You, a member of God's assembly, yet you never know that assembly
gathered according to scripture, or the action of the Spirit proper to it! You,
a member of Christ's body, yet the Holy Ghost never allowed to use you, or
other members of it, to the glory of Christ and the edification of your
brethren! If it be so, how comes it? Why should you go on thus?
It is
granted that there are serious questions here, and many obstacles; and I am
sure we ought to pray much for those that are thus perplexed and encumbered.
Let me not disguise from them what it costs in this world to be true to the
Lord and the unerring word of God. It is not for any one (the Lord keep us far
from it !) to look lightly or coldly on those who are in this grievous trial:
we may have known some of its bitterness ourselves. What do we desire for God's
children? Nothing less than their deliverance, yea, of every one. Do not all
saints who rest upon the redemption of Christ belong to the body? Has not God
set them as it pleased Him in His church ? And what are we doing ? Are we
gathering together to improve on the Spirit's action in the church of God ? God
forbid : rather is it to honour the Lord in the assurance that He is in our
midst. Our only true reason, if we have a divine reason at all, for meeting
together in the name of the Lord Jesus, is that it is His own will and way; it
is to please Him. And if it has been done at cost, God blesses this greatly,
and blesses it too to the softening of the spirit quite as much as to the
exercise of faith: if it is not so, there is something wrong with our souls. Am
1, then, as the centre of my church-action, cleaving to the presence of the
Holy Ghost? If I am not, I have not got God's centre for mine, and am still
under the dominion of tradition in some shape or another; carrying on either
what my father did, or something else that suits my mind better: but where is
God in all this?
You may be taunted, as we all know, with bigotry and
exclusiveness. Did these censors ever weigh what either means? I call bigotry
an unreasonable attachment, without solid divine warrant, to one's own
particular doctrine or practice in defiance of all others. Allow me to ask, Is
it bigotry to give up one's most cherished associations because of God's word,
in order to do His will? Is it exclusive to abandon sects, one and all, in
order to be always and only where I can meet all saints according to the word,
and in dependence on the Holy Ghost, gathered unto Christ's name? I am not
assuming this for any one who does not own scripture as the unchanging truth of
God ; but I ask you who do, are you to allow yourselves to depart from the
known ground of God, no matter what may be the trial within or the temptation
without you? There are often attachments of other kinds that create difficulty.
Friends may ask you to go here or there for once at any rate; and it seems hard
to refuse, especially as they understand not the force of a divine conviction,
which they lack themselves. You invite them, perhaps, to come with you, and you
decline going with them. Does it not look proud and unbrotherly? Well, it may
seem singular to them, but it ought to be perfectly plain to you; it may be
real humility, and love too, haughty and unkind as rash ignorance counts it.
Let us conceive a godly churchman or dissenter to put this plain
question: "How is it that you, who are so free and hearty in receiving
Christians in the name of Christ, will not come with me to my church or
chapel?" The answer is, "On your own principles, as a Protestant Christian, you
can come here with a good conscience, where we are sure the one desire is to be
subject to the Lord and His word, in the unity of His body, and in the liberty
of His Spirit. You surely acknowledge it is no sin to meet as we do, according
to scripture, and therefore you can meet with us. But I, for my part, am clear
that it is unscriptural to desert the scriptural ground for that of dissent or
Anglicanism, and therefore it is not want of love but fear of sin that keeps me
from going with you, who do not pretend to be meeting on the ground of God's
assembly." Surely he is a bigot or worse who would urge or expect me to join
him against my positive conviction, that in so doing I should sin against God.
Sin is a man doing his own will, or another's, which is not God's. If you ask
me to depart from what I know to be the will of God, it would of course be sin
in me to comply. It is not only a thing that is sinful in itself, but it would
be most especially a sin in me, because I know, if you are ignorant, that it is
infidelity to the Spirit's operation in the church.
Be not moved,
then, by reproaches, any more than by fair speeches. For there is no real love,
save in obeying God. (1 John v. 2, 3.) Never swerve from what you believe to be
His will. You may have come in at first little acquainted with the truth or
with the solemn responsibilities it involves; perhaps it was on that slender
reason that you were here converted: but how is it with you now? Have you been
searching the word of God to ascertain His mind and will? Do you see the
presence and action of the Holy Ghost in the assembly to be the truth of God?
Is it not perfectly plain and sure that God has sent down His Spirit, and that
this truth has to be owned and acted upon by you and all Christians? That
truth* you cannot deny; you know very well it is of God; you may not value it
as you ought, (who does?) but this is another thing. The Lord grant that we may
all value it more and increasingly.
* That "the different
denominations" present a state of things directly at variance with "one body
and one Spirit" is too plain to call for argument with those who are used to
bow to scripture, and to judge present facts by it. How painful then it is to
read such sentiments as these in the recent words (June, 1869) of one whom I
cannot but love and esteem for his work's sake! I sometimes think that these
will continue for ever. They are of no hurt to the church of God but a great
blessing; for some of them take up one point of truth which is neglected, and
others take up another; and so between them all the whole of truth is brought
out; and it seems to me that the church is even more one than if all the
various sections were brought together into one grand ecclesiastical
corporation [who contends for this but a Papist or Puseyite?]; for this would
probably feed some ambitious personts vanity, and raise up another dynasty of
priestcraft like the old Babylon of Rome. Perhaps it is quite as well as it is;
but let each body of Christians keep to its own work, and not sneer at the work
of others." Alas, the word of God does not occur in all this reasoning of
unbelief (though in a believer); but as usual the very publication in which it
occurs is a witness that this justification of sin is as hollow as its
profession of love and order. For a large portion is devoted to sneering at the
only Christians who at this time are seeking to give practical effect to their
faith in the "one body and one Spirit." With much, very much, of the paper on
Order, Heaven's first Law" I go so heartily that I am the more grieved to
notice, in however friendly a spirit, such flagrant inconsistency both in
principle and in practice. Let us rather humble ourselves for our common sin,
seek to walk in obedience and love while waiting for the Lord Jesus, but never
abuse the grace of God to deny His truth which condemns our ways.
Search the Scriptures, examine the word of God for your own souls; by this
means we obtain true spiritual intelligence, but this only in obedience, and we
do not want it otherwise. The intelligence that is gathered in disobedience
seems to me perilous and untrustworthy; to learn the truth, step by step acting
it out, is a happier and holier path, and of simpler faith too. At the same
time that we value intelligence, we must remember that there is another thing
yet more important-single-eyed subjection to the will of God, even if we seem
to be unintelligent about much. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of
wisdom." That scripture is not out of date; and I believe such is the divine
and therefore the best way, as a beginning. There is blessedness in gradually
growing up into the truth of God, above all looking to Him that we walk in that
which we know.
For the present, I pray the Lord that the great truths
of the "one body" and "one Spirit," which have been before us, may be brought
home by His own power; so that all of us who know them may be cheered and
confirmed, and that those who are ignorant may be taught them of
Himself.
Lecture III
THE ASSEMBLY AND MINISTRY.
1 Cor.
xiv.
The two subjects which are now to come before us may seem at
first sight to be rather widely separated ; but in truth, far as they appear to
diverge, they equally flow from Christ. They are founded both of them upon His
work, as an accomplished fact; they are derived from Him in His present place
of exaltation at the right hand of God; they are established for the express
object of magnifying the Lord Jesus, even as they are now called in a very
direct way to subserve His Lordship. And this last point is one of immense
practical importance. For whatever may be the power of the Spirit in ministry,
whatever may be the privileges of the assembly, still the Lordship of Christ is
a truth of elementary character indeed in the mind of God, but of exceeding
moment for the practical working of the Spirit of God, both in the individual
members, who are His servants, and in the assembly, the body of which He is the
Head. Hence we can at once see that, whatever may be the different lines that
either the ministry or the assembly may take, yet they spring from a common
source, and they are both intended of God to be subject to, and the means of
exalting, the same Lord Jesus Christ. Now it will be my business tonight to
direct attention to the testimony we have in the word of God as to both these
subjects, in order to show, as far as limits permit, wherein they differ;
wherein also a common principle binds them together; and above all their common
end, as well as the Christian's consequent responsibility.
First of
all, as to the assembly, we may be the more brief, inasmuch as we have had
already the "one body " before us, as well as the "one Spirit." But I may
direct you to a few scriptures which prove what I have just advanced, that the
assembly of God is founded upon the accomplished work of Christ, and His
exaltation to heavenly glory.
Let me premise that the church has the
same meaning with the assembly; hence the word "assembly" is often used in
order to avoid misunderstanding. There might be many questions raised as to the
meaning of "church:" it is hardly possible to create difficulties as to the
word "assembly." Now the fact is that the church is the assembly. Assembly is
the proper English word, rather than "church," which has become anglicized, no
doubt, but it frequently conveys notions not only vague, but even opposite to
different minds.
Now in the Acts of the Apostles, as compared ,with
Matthew xvi. we find clear light. The Lord at a very critical point in His
dealings with the disciples, tells Peter more particularly, but all His
followers in fact, that He was going to build His assembly "Upon this rock,"
says He, "I will build my church." The reason of this was that the unbelief of
the Jewish people was complete, after He had given the fullest divine proof,
both in miracles and signs, in accomplished prophecies, and above all in the
moral power which ever hung around Him a brighter crown of glory than anything
in either miracle or prophecy. But when the Lord had, so to speak, exhausted
all the means which even His goodness and wisdom could suggest in acquiescence
with the will of God the Father, and the result of His patient grace was that
the unbelief and scorn of the true Messiah became more and more decided, the
spirit of hostility becoming more evidently deadly in its character, He brings
all to issue by asking who men said that He was. The answer showed the total
uncertainty of Israel; nay, rather the only certainty was that men, the best
and wisest of them, humanly speaking, those that had seen most of Him, were
completely wrong. He appeals then, not to some great one, but to a heart that
was true - to Simon the son of Jonas; and from his lips falls that confession
for which the Lord Himself pronounced him blessed - blessed because it was not
of flesh and blood, with their mere weakness and opposition to God. It was the
Father who was in heaven who had revealed to his soul the glorious truth, that
underneath that despised form - that outcast, the Nazarene, was not only the
Christ, but the Son of the living God. The Lord Jesus immediately lays holds of
this confession, and, with especial reference to the latter part of it - His
being not merely the Messiah or Christ, but the Son of the living God, He says,
Upon this rock I will build my church."
The Messiah, in shame and
humiliation, was a stumbling-stone to Israel; but the Son of the living God
confessed was the rock upon which the church is built. This was a fuller
confession, and a deeper one - in all its fulness certainly new, and so treated
of the Lord. Not but that, as we know, Christ was the Son of the living God
from all eternity; but still for the first time He was so confessed by human
lips, and by a heart taught of God the Father. The Lord Jesus, then, also for
the first time, intimates that upon this confession His church was to be built;
and immediately He forbids them to tell that He was the Christ, showing that it
was no question now of being received and reigning as Messiah. He was to be
rejected, and to suffer. Hence, on His rejection by the people, but the
recognition of the higher glory of His person by the remnant represented by
Peter, we have His sufferings and death at once announced. This it is which
opened the door for that new work of God - the church that was to be built upon
the confession of Jesus Christ, "the Son of the living God."' Accordingly soon
follows the Lord dying on the cross, determined to be the Son of God with power
by the resurrection from the dead, then glorified, and in due time sending down
the Holy Ghost from heaven. The second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles,
which shows the presence of the Holy Ghost, gives us for the first time the
assembly as an existing fact on earth. This is worthy of all note. The Lord in
Matt. xvi. had spoken of His assembly as a thing that had yet to be reared up:
"Upon this rock I will build my church." But now in Acts ii. we find the church
is in process of being built ; as it is said in the end of the chapter, "the
Lord added to the. church* (or, together) daily such as should be saved."
* It has been objected that some editors, as Lachmann and others, have
omitted here in deference to the Sinai, Vatican, Alexandrian, and Rescript of
Paris, and a few juniors, with the Vulgate, Coptic, Aethiopic, and Armenian
versions; but all the other uncials and cursives, with the Syriac, Arabic, and
Slavonic versions, not to speak of early citations, accept the word; and then
were followed by Griesbach, Scholz, &c., as well as Bengel hesitatingly.
Tischendorf, who had at first rejected the common reading, replaced it in his
later editions, though probably will now incline him once more against it. But
it ought to be remembered that even the school of Lachmann, if they reject it,
separate from chap. iii. 1, so that the passage would make the sense
substantially the same as if, "to the church," were read; namely, "The Lord was
adding daily together those that should be saved." Hence in Acts iv. 23 it is
said of Peter and John, that when let go, they went to their own company. There
was now a new association to which they belonged distinct from the old
congregation of Israel; and this beyond a question is formally called (Greek)
in chap. v. 11, not as if it were then called into being, but most evidently as
already subsisting and known. It is clear then that independently of the phrase
in Acts ii. 47, "the assembly," in a New Testament sense, did in fact begin at
Pentecost, as is confessed by Pearson, Whitby, and others.
This is a
very important lesson, and full of weighty results. It proves that the church
does not mean merely people that are saved, or in process of being saved.
Salvation was true before the assembly. The Lord took such as should be saved,
and brought them into the church. If there had been no assembly to bring them
into, this would not have negatived the fact that they were "such as should be
saved."
What is the meaning of "such as should be saved"? It means
those in Israel destined to be saved - those Jews whom grace was looking upon
and dealing with in their souls. In the approaching dissolution of the Jewish
system God reserved to Himself a remnant according to the election of grace.
There was always this remnant, which a time of declension and ruin served but
to define. Thus, during the Lord's lifetime the disciples were the remnant, or
"such as should be saved." All those that were soon to confess Jesus as Messiah
by the Holy Ghost were "such as should be saved;" but there was no such thing
yet as the church to add them to. Now, at the time referred to in Acts ii., the
assembly or church was there to which they might be added. Coincident with the
Holy Ghost's presence, we have the church; and this agrees with 1 Cor. xii. 13,
where it is said that "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body;" that
is to say, the formation of the body depends upon the baptism of the Spirit.
Acts i shows that the baptism of the Spirit had not yet taken place; Acts ii.
shows that it had; and immediately the fact is apparent that the church was
there as a thing actually found upon the earth, to which "such as should be
saved" were being added by the Lord. That is, the Lord now had a house upon the
earth. The stones were there before-living stones, but they were separate:
there was no building of God in this sense here below.
Now the Lord
acts upon His words, "Upon this. rock I will build my church." He brings the
living stones together; He builds them into one and the same house - the house
of God, and this not by faith merely, but by the Holy Ghost sent down from
heaven. We know that, before they thus entered the church, there were at least
a hundred and twenty names who are expressly mentioned in Acts i. They too were
"such as should be saved." And I do not doubt that there were considerably more
who really were brethren. Thus, in 1 Cor. xv. 6, we hear of "above five hundred
brethren" who saw the Lord after His resurrection. Therefore, it is plain,
there were pretty many believers in the land of Israel. The "hundred and
twenty" were those who, at or after the crucifixion, lived in Jerusalem. But
whatever might be the number of the brethren throughout the land, or of the
names in Jerusalem, there was no such thing as "the church," the assembly of
God, until the Holy Ghost was sent down to give unity - to form them into one
existing corporation, whether you regard it as the house of God, or as the body
of Christ. There are very important differences connected with these views of
the assembly; but still it is the presence of the Holy Ghost which makes it
either Christ's body or the temple of God. In 1 Cor. it is spoken of as
constituted by the Holy Ghost, present and operating in it; there also it is
called the body of Christ, as we see from the scripture just referred to: "By
one Spirit are we all baptized into one body."
Obviously this is
extremely important, because what people think and talk about as the "invisible
church"-though scripture never uses the expression -was substantially in
existence before " the church ; " and, in fact, this invisible state of things
is what the Lord was putting an end to, when He formed the church. In Old
Testament times, we all know, there was a nation which God accounted and called
His people, in the midst of whom there were isolated believers, as no doubt
there were other believers among the Gentiles. Thus, there was Job, for
instance, in early days; and every now and then, throughout the scriptures, we
have one Gentile and another who evidently manifested divine life in them, and
a looking for the Redeemer, outside the limits of Israel. For all that, there
was no such thing as "the church"- no gathering together of the scattered
believers into one, till the death of Christ. The children of God had been
scattered abroad, but then they were gathered together. Henceforth disciples in
Israel were not only destined to salvation, but they were gathered into one
upon the earth. This is the church. The assembly necessarily supposes a
gathering of the saints into one body, separate from the rest of mankind. There
was no such body before. Hence, to talk of "the church" in Jewish times, or in
earlier days, is altogether a mistake. The mixture of believers with their
unbelieving countrymen (i.e., what is called "the invisible church") was the
very thing which the Lord was concluding - not beginning - when He "added to
the church daily such as should be saved."
The common error upon this
subject is, that the aggregate of those that are to be saved composes the
church. But the contrary appears from this scripture and many others. Up to
this time "such as should be saved" were not in the church. Now the Lord takes
and adds them day by day together, making up one assembled body. Thus, it is
quite evident that "the assembly" is one thing, and the being saved is another.
Of coarse, salvation is true of those that are in and of the church. The Lord
does not leave "such as should be saved" in their old associations, but
gradually builds them together into the church. But the two ideas are so
totally distinct, that, all through the Old Testament, there were "such as
should be saved," and yet there was no "church of God," in the sense we are now
deducing from scripture. The assembly of Israel no doubt there was, and it is
called the "congregation of Jehovah"- the "assembly," if you will, of Jehovah;
but then that was merely the nation, the entire mass of the Jewish people. It
was out of this very nation that the first nucleus of "the church" was taken;
and the Holy Ghost having just come down to dwell in those that were already
there, the Lord takes the others that were converted at Pentecost or
afterwards, and adds them to the existing body - the church now in course of
formation. Evidently, therefore, the first covenant state that was now ready to
vanish away answers to what people mean when they speak of "a visible and
invisible church." They would call the Jewish nation the visible church, and
"such as should be saved" in their midst, the invisible church. Well, let them
so speak, if they will; but all I now affirm, and wish to impress upon every
one who is subject to the word of God, is that, as applied to what the New
Testament calls "the church of God," this kind of thought and language is
condemned by the clear and positive statements of God's word. I would not speak
so strongly if scripture left the smallest shadow of doubt upon the point. But
if the word of God is express, it seems to me criminal for a believer to speak
doubt. fully. Not only is he not doing all he should do, but he is really
helping on the spirit of infidelity in the world. We owe it to our God to be
firm where His word is plain; we owe it to Him to be uncompromising as well as
obedient. If the word of God be thus explicit, that now for the first time we
have "the church," formed by the baptism of the Holy Ghost vouchsafed to
believers, and that those who were destined to salvation, "such as should be
saved," were taken out of Israel and added to that assembly, then I say that
the church, in the New Testament sense of the word, never did or could exist
before- that it began there and then - that it consists of saved people taken
out of the Jews first, and then out of the Gentiles afterwards, as we know, but
both brought into one existing body upon the earth. That body is, and is
called, "the church," or the assembly of God.
In due time the Lord
began to extend the work. Thus, in Acts viii., we find Samaria receiving the
gospel, and the Holy Ghost subsequently given to the believers. We have
afterwards the Ethiopian eunuch brought to the knowledge of Christ. Then the
great apostle of the Gentiles is so converted as to be the fittest witness of
grace, as well as of the church -one with Christ in heaven: as indeed in Col.
i. he styles himself not only minister of the gospel, but of the church. Only
he treats of it as the body of Christ.
By the way, in passing, I would
remark that Acts ix. 31 has its force impaired, to say the least, in the common
Greek text and English version. "Then had the churches rest," we read,
"throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, and were edified; and walking
in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were
multiplied." Now the best copies and most ancient versions give "the church,"
not "the churches." I admit fully there were churches in all these districts;
but there is nothing peculiar in this. But that which, I am persuaded, the
Spirit of God wrote here, was "the church." Minds were perplexed very early
indeed. The idea of the church as a subsisting united society upon the earth is
easily lost sight of, particularly when we look at different districts and
countries, such as Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria. The true reading at once
leads us back to the substantial unity that belonged to the church, or assembly
of God, here below. There might be ever so many assemblies throughout Judea,
and Samaria, and Galilee, but it was the church. I admit that we often hear of
the churches of Judea, and of other countries, as Galatia for instance. No one
questions the fact of many different assemblies in these different lands. But
then there is another truth which has not been seen for a long while by the
great mass of God's children - not only that God set up a body which did not
exist before, but that wherever assemblies might be, it was all the assembly.
Not only did He constitute the church upon earth, susceptible of daily growth,
but while He extended the work, while He formed fresh assemblies in this or
that district and country, it was nevertheless one and the same church wherever
it might be. This scripture, rightly read, furnishes a strong proof of it; and
I will now just add that the best authorities leave no doubt on my mind as to
this. The word churches supplanted the church at an early day; and probably it
is due to the fact that very soon the copyists, like other people, began to
lose sight of the unity which God was establishing among His children upon the
earth.* It is so much more natural to conceive merely of distinct churches,
than to take in the precious truth of the church wherever it is found upon the
face of the earth. This may have led to assimilating the true phrase to another
and more familiar one, especially when the sense of unity decayed and
disappeared.
* The external authority stands thus. The Alexandrian ,
the Vatican, the Palimpsest of Paris, and the Sinai MSS. are documents of the
highest value, which agree in reading "the church," not "the churches." In this
they are supported by the most important cursive extant, now in the British
Museum, along with a fair number of others. Of the ancient versions, there is
not one of first-rate authority which does not confirm the singular - the
Peschito Syriac, Coptic, Sahidic, Vulgate, Aethiopic, Armenian, and the
Erpenian Arabic. The most ancient Uncial which gives the plural form is that of
Laud, in the Bodleian Library, of about the sixth or seventh century, supported
by two others of the ninth century, with the mass of cursives, the Philoxenian
Syriac, and an Arabic version. But even here it is to be remarked that the
weightiest, or Laudean copy, is unquestionably wrong in reading "all the
churches; " and the others may have been influenced by Acts xvi. 5. It is
certainly easier to suppose that the less usual form might have been changed by
scribes to a common type, than that the very old authorities joined in an
error, which the crowd of juniors escaped. Ordinary the tendency runs in a
direction exactly opposite.
From the historical account in the Acts of
the Apostles, let us turn to the instruction which the rest of the New
Testament affords as to the assembly. First, the Lord in Matt. xviii. had laid
down the spirit in personal matters that was to actuate the assembly, beginning
with one of its members. He had shown there, that the legal spirit is quite out
of place. He had pointed out in the most beautiful manner how He Himself was
the Son of man that came "to seek and to save that which was lost" not merely
that He was the Shepherd of Israel, gathering His own people, but that He was
come in quest of the lost, in the pure and simple and full grace of God. Take a
case which He knew might occur in the assembly He was going to build - the case
of one brother trespassing against another: what was to guide? Not law, nor
nature, but grace. The righteousness of man would say: "The man that has done
the wrong must come and humble himself " "No," says grace, "go you after him."
"What I after the man that did me this wrong?" "Yes, it is exactly what the
Lord has done." That is, the Lord puts His own grace as the pattern, and
spring, and power that is to govern the individual, and of course also to be
the life - breath of the assembly. Consequently we find: "If thy brother
trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone."
He that was trespassed against becomes in grace the active party. He goes, and
for what purpose? To tell his brother his fault. What a call for the
painstaking and self-abnegation of love! And if his brother hear him, he has
"gained his brother."' What a requital, even now from the Lord! It would be
indeed a sorrow to the heart that he should go farther astray. Thus it is that
love, divine love, reproduces itself in those that the Lord is not ashamed to
call His brethren. He calls them to be the witnesses, not of the servant by
whom the law was given, but of Himself, who was full of grace and truth.
Accordingly, then, grace is the energetic influence that works; but truth is
not set aside for a moment. Still less can the Christian entertain that pride
of heart and indifference that would say, "Well, he has acted wrongly; I am
above it, and will take no notice of it " There would be in this a spirit of
hard forgetfulness of Christ and His grace, as well as the world's indifference
about one's brother. There is no allowance of either in our Saviour's words.
Again, the legal principle, right as it is in itself, of dealing with a man as
he deserves, is entirely excluded. Divine grace, as seen in the person and
mission of the saviour of the lost, works in the soul if we follow His voice.
We know well how easily it might be forgotten, and how the heart might reason:
"Because he is my brother, he is the less excusable - he ought to know better."
There is truth in this: no doubt, he ought to know it; but if he does not, you
may at least feel what is your place and privilege. "Go and tell him," &c.
Thus the Lord does not lay down a law for the wrong-doer to find his way back,
but calls the man that is in the right to go forth, not in the spirit of
right., but of grace., to win him who is wrong; and if the latter hears, the
former has gained his brother. If the wrong-doer refuses to hear, the thing is
to be laid before others. "If he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two
more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be
established." There would be as it were a combined action of grace brought to
bear upon the offender's soul, that he may hold out no longer. It was bad
enough to refuse one: can he refuse one or two more? Well, but if he does
neglect to hear them, what then ? The whole church hear and speak; all the
objects and witnesses of divine grace who are in the place are intent and
occupied with the trespasser. Can he reject the church ? If he does, "let him
be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."
Brethren, what
sentence so terrible as the sentence of grace and truth rejected? And thereby
is seen the sad mistake that is often made when men talk about love, but I am
afraid with little appreciation of it. There must be a love in deed and in
truth from Christ Himself, to begin and go on with such a work as this. But
observe, the very same delight in and submission to Christ which can carry one
after a personal offender thus, not as a bare duty, but with fervent desire to
win him back - the self-same spirit of faith regards him, if refractory, "as a
heathen man and a publican." He may be really a converted man; but he who
rejects the grace of Christ thus flowing out according to the truth, is no
longer to be counted as a brother. No matter whether he is really a brother or
not before God, he is rejecting the Lord, as it were, in those that represent
Him on earth in His assembly. "Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a
publican."
This, then, is the Lord's weighty and standing lesson
before the assembly came into existence; but we are not left only to these
preliminary preparations of the Lord. In 1 Cor., and more particularly in the
chapter that was read, is a very full account of the way in which the Lord
orders the assembly. Before calling your attention to this, let me refer first
of all to chapter xii., where the subject of spiritual manifestations begins.
There you find the Holy Ghost in active operation. He is at work in the various
members of the assembly of God. For "there are diversities of gifts, but the
same Spirit; and there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord;
and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God who worketh all
in all But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit
withal; for to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another, the
word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another, faith, by the same Spirit; to
another, the gifts of healing, by the same Spirit" - and so on. But if we have
here spiritual acting in the assembly, observe that the subject opens by tests
that decide between the spirits that were not of God, and the Holy Ghost. It is
not a question of settling who are Christians and who are not, but of
discriminating what is of the Holy Spirit from the spirits that are opposed to
Him - the instruments of the enemy.
And what may these tests be? "No
one speaking by the Spirit of God, says Jesus [is] accursed (or anathema); and
no one can say Lord Jesus but by the Holy Spirit." Thus the Holy Spirit of God
would never treat Christ as in His own person, or relationship to God, under a
curse. This is a very simple and solemn test, and ought to be weighed by us - I
think I may say, beloved brethren, by us especially. For in our own days a most
audacious effort of the devil has been put forth. Have not men dared to assert
that the Lord Jesus, in His own relationship to God as a man upon the earth,
was under the curse of the broken law?- that He was under the effects, as
between His soul and God, of man's distance from God? At once we discern what
spirit this is. " No man speaking by the Holy Ghost calleth Jesus accursed." On
the other hand, "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."
When an evil spirit works, he may utter many fine things; he may appear to
exalt Christ and His servants, as we see in the Gospels and in the Acts of the
Apostles; but he never owns Jesus as Lord. It is the sure mark of an evil
spirit to lower Jesus, by bringing Him in some way or other for Himself, under
the curse. I am not speaking of His taking that place upon the cross by grace,
but of His own place as man with God, apart from atonement. The pretence may be
thereby to increase His sympathy towards us, or to enhance His triumph over the
difficulty, and His extrication from it; but no one speaking by the Holy Ghost
says Jesus is accursed. Then you have the counter-test, that those who own the
Lordship of Jesus, own Him in the power of the Holy Ghost. This is no question
of souls being saved, but a means of detecting what manner of spirit is active
in the church. It is the scriptural touchstone for discovering those that are
under the power. of an evil spirit, and those that speak by the Holy Ghost.
What is of the Holy Ghost really exalts Christ, and gives Him His due place as
Lord. The spirit of error as surely seeks to debase His person and frustrate
His work
The Holy Spirit invariably maintains two things - the glory
of Christ as to His person, and the Lordship of Christ as to His place: the one
fitting for, and the other flowing from His work. Now this at once prepares the
way for the important and practical truth, that the great object of the
assembly of God is the recognition of Christ as Lord. We are, therefore, at
once cast upon the question, Has the Lord given regulations for His assembly,
or has He left us to ourselves? Have we Do directing principle for the manner
in which the assembly of God is to conduct itself in this world ? Is the church
wholly abandoned, as it were, to its spiritual instincts? Is it to be moulded
by the particular age or country in which the saints may be found? I trust
there is no person here who would endorse thoughts so evidently of mere nature
as these. What, the Christian assembly dependent on age or country! Can those
who so speculate or act really believe that the church of God is a creature of
the world after all; that God has left it, like a foundling, to be one thing
here and another thing there? Institutions such as these might be good or bad
churches of man, but certainly one is at a loss to conceive what pretensions
they can set up to be the church of God. It is of all consequence that, be it
the simplest believer, his heart should understand and keep firm hold of this,
so patent in scripture, that if there be one thing that is precious to God upon
the earth, it is His church; that if there be one thing God is above all
jealous of maintaining therein, it is the glory of Christ; and that it is not
in the world yet, but in the children of God, that God Himself is now active by
His Spirit, for the purpose of glorifying Christ But, as usual in His ways,
whatever is set up on the earth is always first tried here, and then it is put
into Christ's hands, by whom the divine counsels are accomplished infallibly.
Today is the time of trial. When Jesus comes, there will be no farther trial in
this respect. The church will then enter into the due place which is reserved
for it in the purpose of God. The hour of our responsibility will be over. But
now is the time when the children of God are being put to the test.
Remark, moreover, that one object of the First Epistle to the Corinthians is to
show that theirs was an infant church, an assembly of persons not long gathered
out of the world, and hence in much practical ignorance. You see them assailed
by evils that in these days would not be ordinarily a trial among the children
of God. There was certainly a very low state of moral thought and feeling, and,
in one case at least, such grossness of outward conduct as was not heard of
even among the Gentiles. It would seem that the devil had used particular pains
to take advantage of the happy liberty of these young Christians. They forgot
all about the flesh, being so occupied with the power of the Spirit. They do
not seem to have reflected upon their dangers. They did not walk in
self-judgment. You must remember that they had few of the New Testament
scriptures as yet, and that the apostle had not been long teaching them. Of
course afterwards there was an amazing advantage gained through their very fall
by the instruction which the Holy Ghost gave from it to others, and, we may
trust, to themselves. Yet the epistle clearly shows that the infant church at
Corinth had the responsibility of the church of God. It is the only one that is
expressly thus addressed -"the church of God." At that time no apostles were
there, nor it would seem elders either; but I shall have an opportunity of
adverting to this more fully by-and-by. There was, however, no lack of gifted
people; yet remark, spiritual order is not produced by such manifestations of
power, but by subjection to Christ as Lord. It is not enough to be enriched in
all utterance and knowledge. Few churches had gifts more abundantly than the
assembly in Corinth. It was notwithstanding a most disorderly spectacle; and
the reason was, that they were exercising those powers without reference to the
Lord's will and glory, and so for their own ends. They were pleasing themselves
- exalting themselves. In their new-born exuberance, they were giving the loose
rein to all the spiritual energy that had been bestowed upon them, and the
consequence was that there was the special need of bringing them back into the
ways of God.
Whatever may be the power of the Spirit by and in men on
the earth, it should always be made subservient to Christ the Lord. The
Corinthians did not understand this, and they are reminded of it from the very
beginning of chapter i-" Those that call upon the name of Jesus Christ our
Lord, both theirs and ours." So all through the epistle you will find great
emphasis laid upon His being Lord. We have it here in reference to the bestowal
and character of these gifts. So again in chapter xiv. we have the exercise of
these gifts regulated in the assembly. The church comes together into one
place; there the saints meet as the assembly of God. Did they then speak in a
tongue? It was in vain to plead that the Spirit of God undoubtedly enabled them
so to speak. Again there is no question raised as to the quality of the unknown
subject-matter: it might be all true, sound, and good; but the Lord proscribes
what does not edify the assembly. As a general rule, in the absence of one who
could interpret, the exercise of those tongues is forbidden in the assembly.
This is a most momentous matter for practice. No matter how truly a
man has a power which comes from the Holy Ghost, he is not always to use it;
more than this, he is bound to use it in obedience to Christ. There are certain
regulations laid down to which he must submit himself The apostle takes up
prophesying particularly, because it was the highest form of acting on the
conscience; as in mentioning the various gifts, he (chap. xii. 28) put
diversities of tongues in the lowest place. Thus he rebuked the vanity of the
Corinthians; for what they made more of than anything, else, the apostle
reduces to the last rank. "God hath set some in the church, first apostles,
secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of
healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." Then after the most
precious unfolding of love in chapter xiii. (how needful in these matters!) he
comes to the due exercise of gift in the assembly in chapter xiv. "If
therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with
tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they
not say that ye are mad ? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that
believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all;
and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest, and so, falling down on
his face, he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth."
Observe the weight of the principle which the apostle here insists upon. God
has formed the church, the assembly, as a testimony to Christ upon the, earth -
a testimony to His Lordship. The consequence is, whatever would give a false,
or even a vainglorious testimony, whatever would prompt men to say "Ye are mad"
is forbidden, no matter how certainly the power, thus misused, itself might be
of God. The gift of tongues, for instance, evidently was of the Holy Ghost and
not of nature; but its use is subjected to divine regulations, as we see here.
And this has a wide scope: indeed, I hold it to be the grand criterion for
every Christian man to apply both for his own conduct and for judging that of
others. But when we speak of judging what others do or say, need I add that it
becomes us to weigh all humbly and in love, seeing well to it that we are not
thinking of ourselves but of the glory of the Lord? But I do say that we are
always bound to think of the glory of the Lord; and therefore, no matter under
what circumstances., no matter where, we are responsible to judge in subjection
to Him.
Prophesying here, evidently, does not mean predicting, as some
might suppose; nor, as others say, mere preaching. There is a great deal of
preaching which is not prophesying. Indeed, it might well be affirmed that the
preaching of the gospel is never, rightly considered, prophesying; for this
last is that character of teaching which lays the conscience bare in the
presence of God, and brings God and man thus close together, if I may venture
so to put it, Therefore this is what the apostle contrasts with the exercise of
a tongue. The tongue was forbidden, if there were no interpreter; and for the
plain reason, that otherwise it would not edify the church. The object of all
that is done there must be " unto edifying." Whatever therefore does not edify
is not fit for the assembly of God, and ought not to be allowed there. It may
be well meant; it may be by the Holy Ghost, as regards power; but whatever is
not intelligible, and has not the character of building up the saints of God,
is not fit for the assembly. These things might be very well out of the
assembly; nay, it was their proper place, as a testimony to unbelievers. But
they had no business in the assembly, if their exercise did not tend to the
instruction, exhortation, or comfort of the assembly; and edify the assembly
they could not, unless there was one who had the gift of the interpretation of
tongues, and could, therefore, turn them to present account in the building up
the saints of God in the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ.
This then is the rule by which all is to be governed. "If any man speak in an
unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course;
and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in
the church; and let him speak to himself and to God." But suppose you are
prophets; suppose you can speak to edification in this powerful way, " let the
prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge." Here the apostle takes
the example of the prophets in contradistinction to the tongues; for everything
the prophet said was for the express purpose of edifying. While therefore he
admits them to be in the first rank of the gifts of edification, there is this
other important guard asserted, that, precious and profitable as prophesying
may be, no more than two or three were to speak on the same occasion.
Doubtless, they were to speak one after another; they were to speak in order
and by course; mutually subject, but not more than two or three. Why so?
Because it would not tend to the very edification which was the great object of
prophesying; it would be overdoing, being more than the saints could really
profit by; and therefore there are these defined limits. Granted that prophets
give the highest character of Christian instruction; but only two or three were
to speak, and the others were to judge.
"If anything be revealed to
another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace." There might be then
that which no longer exists, any more than speaking in a tongue; that is,
revelation. This must be carefully remembered. The truth of God may be brought,
in the most powerful manner, by the Holy Spirit, to bear upon the conscience,
so that even now, as then, there may be the firmest conviction conveyed to an
unbeliever who might come in, that God was there. I do not doubt that this is
perfectly possible, and may be now at any time; and I would to God it were
always! But this is a wholly distinct thing from a revelation. God may use
Christian instruction of a powerful character from the written word as a
testimony to His own presence among His children on earth. But revelation
cannot ought not, to be now looked for. The apostle was instructing these
saints before the canon of scripture was closed. All the truth of God was not
then written; and therefore it seems to me to be the fact, that, according to
the order of God, there might have been a positive revelation then given, while
much of the word of God remained to be written. Whereas to pretend to
revelation now would be clearly an impeachment of the perfectness of scripture,
and I have no doubt would soon prove to be nothing but the fraud or folly of
man, and a snare of the devil. Whatever might be the power of the Spirit of God
at work now, it must be by means of truth already revealed - truth already in
scripture. It is not something added to that which God has given, but the
mighty use, in the hand of the Spirit of God, of what is already furnished and
permanently given for the church's help in passing through this world. There
may be a recovery of what has been hid by unbelief from the saints; but it is
there. A new truth, revealed Dow for the first time, is incompatible with the
scripture as the complete book of God.
If we have certain things, even
in this chapter, that clearly refer to what was then in existence and not now,
the very fair question may be asked by a simple-minded person desirous of
understanding the word of God-"Why do you maintain that such a chapter as this
is meant to regulate the assembly now ? It is clear that you have not these
tongues, and that there cannot be any revelation of a new truth. If there are
such modifications, why do you contend for this chapter as God's permanent rule
for His assembly?" The answer is quite simple. The Spirit of God necessarily
regulated what was there before Him; but then the great aim of all the
instruction is not miraculous powers nor any other transient actings, which
were evidently for the special object of testimony in the early days of
Christianity. None of these things forms the Centre of these chapters. What
does? THE PRESENCE OF THE HOLY GHOST. To this one point all grave consideration
and sober arguing of the subject must come.
Have we that one and the
same Spirit still ? Can we count upon His presence? Do we believe that He
deigns even now to act in the assembly? How many, day after day, say, "I
believe in the Holy Ghost;" but do they prove their faith by their works? I
would ask you, and desire to ask every saint of God, Do you believe in the real
presence of the Holy Ghost as a Divine person, who is with the church, who is
in the saints, who is there expressly for carrying on the assembly according to
the word of the Lord, and for maintaining the Lordship of Christ there ? If we
have the Holy Ghost; if He be in and with the saints still; if this be a
certain truth, and not dependent for proof upon a particular part of scripture
where miracles and signs are spoken of, but quite as clearly laid down where
these have no place whatever; if He be positively promised to abide with us for
ever, then I demand, how does He act? Does unbelief dare to make the Spirit no
better than a dumb idol? Allow me to put a question or two: Has the Holy Spirit
abandoned the word of the Lord as His only standard for our practice as well as
faith ? Or is it that men bring cunningly devised reasons for avoiding
subjection to that word ? But is it possible that children of God can content
themselves with any reasons for disobedience? Alas it is no want of charity to
speak thus. They can quote continually, "Let all things be done unto edifying;"
and, "Let all things be done decently and in order." But do they ever reflect
that not even the Corinthians had so violated the order of God's assembly by
their unbecoming displays, as they themselves do every day by a routine of
their own (fixed or extempore), which does not resemble the form, any more than
it embodies the spirit, of the divine order? There is the very chapter they
quote on the one side ; there are on the other the plain positive facts of
their religious practice habitually.
You have the church of God no
longer on the ground of one assembly - no longer holding to such a foundation -
principle as liberty for the Spirit therein to edify by whom He pleases. You
have different religious associations set up, often peculiar to different
countries, and in - no respect answering to either the assembly or the
assemblies in the word of God. If a man belonged to the church of God at
Jerusalem, he belonged to the church of God at Rome. It was merely a question
of locality. He was a member of the church of God, and therefore, wherever it
might be, he if there belonged to the church in that place. Scripture does not
recognize membership of a church, but of the church. If the church of God was
in a given place, the Christian, unless put away, finds his place within it.
You never find, I repeat, in scripture, anything about membership of a church;
it is always of the church. This is a most significant difference, as
indicating the departure of Christendom from God's word. For in our days, if
you belong to this church, you do not for that very reason belong to that
church. Instead of your membership in the church of God being the ground why
you are a member of it everywhere, on the contrary, so great is the change,
that now the fact of belonging to one church is the best possible proof that
you do not belong to another. If you belong to the church of Scotland, you have
no such connection with the church of England; if you are a Baptist, you do not
at the same time belong to the Wesleyan society, or to any other of the
Dissenting bodies. Scripture knows nothing of the kind.
Thus the
revolution of Christendom is complete. A state of things entirely outside the
word of God, and contrary to the word of God, has come in. Religious societies,
independent of one another, have sprung up. I am not now speaking particularly
of what is commonly called the Independent or Congregational system, though
there the principle is carried out more antagonistically than in any other to
the unity of the assembly of God as scripture presents it. But take any or
every one of them; they are all more or less independent. It is so even to a
large extent with the national Establishment. On the contrary, in the times of
those who laid the foundation of God's assembly, he who belonged to the church
at all, of course belonged to it where he lived; but if he moved or journeyed
to another place, he was received according to his place in the church
everywhere. There might be in some cues a doubt as to his reality; for subtlety
as well as violence assailed the early Christians Hence they carried letters of
commendation, or they were visited: that is, just the principle of what is now
available can be shown in scripture. Thus, in the case of Saul of Tarsus, when
Barnabas heard the news of his remarkable conversion, he did not like other
disciples think such a work too hard for the Lord . but, being a good man and
full of the Holy ghost, he is quite ready to believe what grace could do, and
goes and finds Saul, who is thus recognized of the church in Jerusalem. So now,
if a stranger comes forward, professing to be a believer in the gospel, persons
in whom all can confide visit him; and thus the church upon their
representation, conscientiously and heartily accepts the confessor of Christ.
But we are not confined to any one rigid canon whatever. There is
divine light in the word of God for every possible exigency, and if we have not
that light, we had better wait on the Lord, and see whether the precious
fulness of scripture will not be rendered without doubt applicable to the
difficulty, by the power of the Spirit, without our presuming to add anything
like a rule to meet the case. It is not meant that there may never be
perplexity, and that we may not feel our weakness and lack of wisdom. Humility,
patience, and faith will ere long prove better solvents than all the appliances
of human art. God has undertaken to provide for us in His word; and spiritual
power consists in the bringing that word, by the Spirit, to bear practically
upon every case that comes before us.
The main point on which I
insist, however is this - that, according to scripture, he who becomes a member
of the church of God at all is a member of it everywhere. He might carry
letters of commendation to the assembly where he went. But why? Because all
through the world it was the church of God. Now I ask you, ought we to accept
as God's assembly anything systematically different from the scriptural account
of it? Ought we to allow another and contrary principle to rule its public
services? If we do, are we really in this subject to the word of God? You may
tell me of the obstacles which exist now, and that you have so many
difficulties to contend with. All this is granted: only let us hold fast that
here, as elsewhere, the will of God is paramount to all other considerations.
If we find ourselves accrediting that which opposes scripture, our business is
to cease from doing evil, and to learn to do well.
It is not our duty
- far from it - to form a new church, but to cleave to that which is the oldest
of all, and the only church that is true - the assembly of God as it is
exhibited in scripture. Why do you hesitate? Are you not satisfied with the
church of God? Whose church, what church do you prefer?
But you allege
that times and circumstances entirely differ now; and you ask, with a sort of
triumphant air, whether two or three Christians meeting here and there can be
God's assembly? Undoubtedly, I reply, there is a sorrowful change; but the true
question is, does God's will about His assembly change? Which is right - to
accept man's change, or to go back to God's will, even though there be but two
or three who meet together in submission to His word? If I am with them
gathered to the Lord's name, owning the members of His body, waiting upon God
to work by His word and Spirit, is not Jesus in our midst? And what so great
comfort for our souls? I hope to prove, another evening, that this is the
express provision of the Lord for these last days; but however this be, all I
stand to now is, that the free action of the Spirit, among the gathered members
of Christ, is the one principle of the assembly of God laid down in His word.
There can be no other which He sanctions. Either I am acting upon it, or I am
not. If I am seeking to be faithful thus to the Lord, blessed am I, whatever my
sorrow for the state of the church. If I am not, at any rate let me confess my
faithlessness. The word of God leaves no doubt what His unchanging mind about
His assembly is. The Holy Ghost is come for ever to guide His assembly. All
that is wanted is a spirit of repentance and of faith. There are hindrances;
there are ties; there must be a high price paid in this evil world for
obedience to the Lord Jesus. But am I His? Do I value His love ? Is He more
precious to me than all else in this world? Is His yoke a burden? Is His will
sweet to my soul ? Then, I say, there is but one pathway. It is vain to be loud
in our profession of readiness to go with the Lord to prison or to death. This
He may not ask of us; but He does in effect demand of every Christian whether
he is true to His own glory in the assembly of God. It is not a question of
rival institutions pertaining to different countries, or to different leaders;
neither is it a question of a special school of doctrine, or of a peculiar n of
discipline and government. Is old habit, is tradition, is interest in this
life, to keep me back from faithfulness to that which God shows to be His will
for His assembly?
If you see the will of the Lord, do not hesitate
another day. Do not wait till everything is clear. It is not faith, when God
calls one out to say, first show me the land. Put away what you know to be
wrong; never go on in what is without doubt contrary to the word of God. "To
him that hath shall be given." Have you renounced what you know does not agree
with, but opposes the word of God? Cleave to nothing but the word. Let me ask,
for example, what you did last Lord's-day. Were you found, as a Christian,
where you could honestly say, "I was in my place in the assembly of God ? " Did
the various members of the body come together trusting to the Holy Ghost to
guide them, with an open door for this or that believer, as each had received
the gift to minister the same one to another, as good stewards of God's
manifold grace? Or were you joining with others where the scriptural plan would
have been regarded as disorderly? If the latter, the Lord grant you to see
clearly that you are not within the scene of His will, and of His glory in the
assembly. I say not that you are strangers to the grace of Christ, or outside
the work of the Holy Spirit- far from it. I believe He blesses not only in
Protestant associations, but beyond them too. Is this to be uncharitable? I
believe that the Spirit of God acts, wherever He sees fit graciously to use the
name of Christ, for the good of believer and unbeliever. I for one doubt not
for a moment that God has used His word for the conversion and comfort of souls
among Roman Catholics - ay, and Romish priests, monks, and nuns. It may have
been in a scanty measure, as assuredly the opposition to the truth is enormous,
and the opening seems small indeed; but yet has it been really so down to our
own days, and still more largely and clearly in the past.
But enough
of this. The question is not whether the Spirit of God may not cause truth to
take effect in this denomination or that. The chief thing before our souls now
is, are we honouring Christ according to the word of God? Are we subject to the
Lord in the assembly? Are we carrying out His will as far as we know it? We may
fail in doing so - surely we all do. When you are thus come together, you may
find some restless, some that do not altogether what they should; you may hear
individuals that had better be silent, and you may see sometimes those silent
whom it would be blessed to hear. It may be that they are yielding to a morbid
sense of responsibility, and fear of criticism, and many other things that
hinder their utterance of what is in their hearts. All this may readily be.
Nobody denies the possibility or the fact of failure. But how does this in the
least decree weaken the truth of God, or the bounden duty of His children?
Let me put a case that any believer may understand. The Holy Ghost
dwells in you, if you are a Christian; but are you always acting in the Spirit?
No. Does not the Spirit always abide? To be sure He does. You are always the
temple of God; you never can be anything else, if you are members of Christ;
but you may for all that sometimes grieve the Holy Spirit. Your obligation,
however, never ceases. It is just so with the Spirit in the church.
Let the assembly come together. We will suppose they are converted, and have
received the Spirit of God, and really do, as an assembly, look to Him to
guide. I use that expression "as an assembly," because it is not assumed that
every member understands the truth about the Spirit of God. Some of them may be
very ignorant. It is more or less a shame for them, but there may be such
cases, and in point *of fact such there are. Some saints have been attracted by
spiritual instinct, who may have been trained up in dissent or nationalism, and
who settle down with little progress in intelligence. These are apt to bring in
the effects of the routine in which they have been brought up spiritually, so
to speak; and I need not say that their experience will not help them to be
always submissive to the guidance of the Spirit. Nor is this at all confined to
these only; for we know what weakness may be found among those that have been
inured to the truth from their infancy. Their being where they are costs them
but little; they have not known any deep sense of the ruin of Christendom.
Their souls have been exercised feebly. I am supposing them to be converted,
but coming into the truth of the church's position rather through parental
training than at the loss of all ; and so there is apt to be a taking for
granted, without any divine conviction, that things are all right. Need I say
how desirable it is that there should be real exercised spiritual intelligence
as to the working of the Holy Ghost in God's assembly ?
But then,
allowing these drawbacks, and all the rest that might be added, the great fact
holds good, that as certainly as the Holy Ghost dwells in every Christian man,
so sure it is that He dwells in the whole assembly - in the church of God. What
we have to consider is, whether individually, or as an assembly, we submit to
be guided by Him to the glory of Christ. Indeed I cannot but judge it to be
really Antinomian in principle, where men deliberately rest in this, that to be
Christians is the one great matter - that if the Lord has shown us His grace,
we need not make much ado about His will or anything else. Is it, then, come to
this, that the great body of God's people not only do not know, bat do not care
to know, His will about His assembly? Do you resent this charge? Then search
and see what is your desire as to this. Is it to be subject to the Lord and His
word? Can there be a more direct test for me as a Christian, or a more evident
way of proving my loyalty to my Lord, than in this very thing? If I belong to
the assembly of God, ought I not to renounce everything inconsistent with the
scriptural account and regulations of that assembly ?
Further, let me
warn you that have taken this position, that wrong principles, false doctrines,
evil ways, may slip in. We know the devices of Satan; but what some of us may
have said before they were thus proved, this we may repeat with increasing
emphasis now, that as God's Spirit is the Spirit of truth, so is He the Spirit
of holiness also. When, therefore, the assembly refuses to bow to God's word,
preferring to accept evil publicly rather than judge it for Christ's sake, what
is to be done in this case? First of course full testimony is to be given, and
warning, private and public perhaps , and patient waiting on honest slowness
and fear, in order to bring all right. But suppose all has been rejected, and
the assembly in any place deliberately prefers its own ease or will to the word
of God, what then? The duty of separation is even more peremptory than from the
ordinary ecclesiastical institutions of Christendom; for it is a greater sin in
the sight of God for those that have known the truth of God, and seemed to be
acting upon it in faith, to abandon it for any reason whatever. Ought not
these, then, to be parted from with yet more gravity and horror in the sight of
God, than one would turn from the meetings of those who have never known the
value of the Lord's name for the assembly of His saints ?
At the same
time, when you find an assembly - let it be small, or let it be great - come
together, owning their faith in the Holy Ghost's presence, we should not be
quick in laying a sin to their charge. Surely there is to be slowness in
judging an assembly yet more than an individual. Are we to assume that our
thoughts, our feelings, are necessarily according to God? Hence we find the
all-importance of waiting upon the Lord. But still the fact remains, that if
the public sin be certain and clear, and all warnings be rejected, the more the
assembly takes the position of being God's assembly, the more is its departure
from Him to be lamented, and one's back is to be turned upon it, because it is
now at least a false profession. God looks for truth in His saints, but He
looks for it also in His assembly. It is the place where He expects the
manifestation of His character before men, and not only where He makes good the
edification of His saints. Everywhere He holds to the glory of His Son. I admit
all the difficulties from the rising up of national systems after the great
Romish apostacy, from the spread of nonconformist bodies subsequently, and from
more recent attempts of all kinds. But let me press upon all who hear me that
we do not contend for anything of ours, whether inherited from our fathers, or
an invention of our own; we do not contend for anything because it is new, nor
even because it is old - had it the green age of three centuries, or the hoary
hairs of fifteen hundred years. We return to the ground which it was our sin -
Christendom's sin-to have left; we return to a way which we know to be
absolutely good and true, because it is God's way. We take our stand upon the
only divine foundation for the church. We have no confidence in ourselves, but
are sure we are right and safe in commending ourselves to God and the word of
His grace; and therefore we may be of good courage. If the character of our
difficulties, dangers, and trials proves how we need the scripture, we learn
also how scripture applies ever fresh and mighty; and thus our hearts are
encouraged to cleave to God more and more.
I have dwelt so long upon
the assembly, that I shall not be able to say much as to ministry tonight. But
I may be brief, more particularly as we shall have the subject of Gifts and
Offices before us another time. Let me just make a few plain observations as to
ministry before closing.
We have seen that the church flows from
Christ risen and glorified by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven to bind
together and form the assembly upon earth. This is the only assembly that God
sanctions, and therefore which every member of it ought to sanction, until the
Lord takes it out of this world. We have the words and workings of the Spirit
of God in the assembly shown us in scripture already referred to. I come now to
some general principles. And first of all, just as the church is a divine
thing, so is ministry. It flows neither from the believer nor from the church,
but from Christ, by the power of the Spirit.
Now this at once clears
the way. The Lord calls, not the church; the Lord sends, not the saints; the
Lord controls, not the assembly. I speak now of the ministry of the word. There
are certain functionaries whom the church does or may choose: for instance, the
assembly may nominate the persons it thinks fit to take care of the funds, and
to distribute of its bounty. The church may employ its servants, selecting them
according to its best wisdom; and the Lord owns this choice. So it was done of
old, as we read in Acts vi, where the multitude chose, and the Apostles laid
their hands upon those chosen to look after the tables. So it was where " the
churches " (in 2 Cor. viii.) chose brethren as their messengers; and so, again,
where the Philippian church made Epaphroditus their messenger in ministering to
the wants of Paul. (Phil. ii.)
But we never find this kind of
selection where the ministry of the word is concerned. Never! On the contrary,
the Lord Himself once looked upon His poor disheartened scattered people,
pitied them, and told the disciples to pray that the Lord of the harvest would
send forth labourers. (Matt. ix.) The very next chapter shows that He was the
Lord of the harvest, who accordingly sends them Himself. Afterwards He prepares
His disciples for the full character of the Christian ministry when He should
leave them. Thus in Matt. xxv. where there occurs the parable of the Lord
departing to a far country, we have the same truth - the Lord giving gifts to
His servants. Now this really decides the matter. For the difference between
that which the word of God acknowledges, and that which is seen now-a-days,
lies in this, that according to scripture the ministry of the word, in its call
and in its exercise, is more truly divine than that which is now substituted
for it in Christendom. Hence also its proper dignity is impaired, specially the
holy independence of man, which is essential to its due exercise. and, above
all, to the glory of the Lord Himself. If preachers be sent by men, it is an
usurpation of the Lord's prerogative, and the gravest detriment to His servants
who submit to it.
What is the effect of ministry exercised according
to scripture? The most perfect freedom for all that, is given of God for the
blessing of souls. Accordingly you find the universal doctrine of the Epistles
fully confirms that which the history shows in the Acts of the Apostles. But I
must refer to both as briefly as may be.
In 1 Cor. xii.-xiv., we have
already seen that it is of the essence of the church, as God's assembly, and
the aim of the Spirit's presence therein, that He should have full liberty to
use whom He pleases for the glory of the Lord and the blessing of all. The
exhortation in 1 Peter iv. 10, 11, and the caution in James iii. 1, suppose the
same openness and its liability to abuse. This may suffice for those within.
As to " those without," the will of the Lord is equally clear. Thus,
in Acts viii. we bear of persecution falling upon the church, and they were all
scattered (but the twelve), and went everywhere preaching the word. Now, I do
not call this necessarily ministerial. Of course some of them were ministers of
the word, others not; but all went everywhere evangelizing. But it proves that
the Lord recognizes any and every Christian man in going forth and announcing
the glad tidings. (Compare Acts xi. 19-21.)
But when we come to
detail, we find Philip in the same chap. viii. preaching freely. "But," some
will say, "he was chosen of the church." He was not chosen to minister the
word. He was chosen, on the contrary, to leave the apostles, unembarrassed by
serving the tables, to the ministry of the word. It was expressly for the
purpose of relieving the apostles from the secular work, that the seven men
were looked out by the multitude, and duly appointed over this lower task; the
call of the church was for this only. It was the Lord that called Philip to
preach the gospel; and the Lord blessed the word, which extended to and beyond
Samaria. (Compare Acts xxi. 8 for both.)
In Acts ix., we see a man on
the highway to Damascus with a commission from the high priest to persecute the
Jewish Christians. That was the only commission Paul received from man - an
authority, not to preach the Gospel, but to extinguish it, if it were possible.
But the Lord, in sovereign grace not only converted Saul of Tarsus, but sent
him out, direct from Himself, a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the
Gentiles in faith and verity. Paul thus becomes the standing type of Christian
ministry. Apart from miraculous facts, he exemplified livingly the words, "we
believe, and therefore speak." (2 Cor. iv.)
We find the Lord after
this introducing others into the work, more particularly Apollos, who was "an
eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures," but so very ignorant at first,
that he knew nothing beyond the baptism of John (that is, the testimony which
was rendered to Christ when He was living upon the earth). But if he was thus
in the dark as to the Church and the full truth of Christianity, he was a
converted man. Of course, there were souls converted before the coming of
Christ. It is mere ignorance that sees any difficulty in such a statement.
Apollos had received by the Spirit the early testimony to the Lord, but he did
not know the work of Christ. This he is taught by a good man and his wife, who
helped him in the fuller understanding of the Scriptures, and he comes out
mightier than ever in the truth, and there is no hint about a human
inauguration before he preaches. Yet the apostle Paul writes with all respect
of Apollos, putting this unordained man between himself and Peter. (I Cor.
iii.) Again, he tells them, in the last chapter of this epistle, that he had
asked Apollos to come, but "his will was not at all to come at this time." Does
not this indicate a very different state of things from what men dream of
apostolic rule, as well as from what exists now? What it does truly illustrate
is the way the Lord maintained His place. An inspired apostle gives his counsel
to Apollos, who does not conform. This Paul himself records without censure;
and, in fact, scripture does not say which was right: it may very probably have
been the great apostle, but on this point we are left entirely in the dark. In
any case, the record brings out the weighty truth that the Lord abides the
absolute Master and Director of His servants. Man likes to regulate; but the
Lord, to whom we are surely bound above all, exercises the hearts of His
servants, and gives them in this word a guiding principle for all time. Is it
true for your soul and for mine? Are we practically servants of the Lord - of
the Lord only I or are we serving a denomination as its ministers? If we are
only nationalist or dissenting ministers, I have nothing to say; but if we are
really ministers of Christ, let us beware. "No man can serve two masters:" if
we have been striving to serve Christ and the sect whose officials we are,
which is to be held to? which to be given up?
Thus, along with the
assembly of God, there is the ministry of the word, committed sovereignly to
some of its members, not to all, yet assuredly for the good of all. Let the
assembly respect the servants in their place, and let the servants respect the
assembly in its place. None ever confound the two things without the most
disastrous consequences: neither must be sacrificed. It is the place of a
servant, no doubt, to preach or teach in subjection to Christ; it is the place
of a servant, likewise, to counsel, guide, govern, according to his gift from
the Lord. But whatever may be the servant's mind, judgment, or counsel, nothing
dissolves the direct responsibility of the assembly to Christ. The same Jesus
is Lord of the servant, but He is also owned as the Lord by the assembly of
God.
Take the instance, again, which is shown in Acts xiii. Barnabas
and Saul go forth on a missionary circuit, directed by the Holy Ghost, and
taking Mark with them. But Mark turns out an indifferent servant, and speedily
returns to his home. They are going out again (Acts xv.), but Paul insists upon
going without Mark. Barnabas, who was related to Mark, did not like him set
aside, and contends with Paul about it - good man as he was - and this so
sharply, that it leads to a severance of these two devoted and tenderly
attached servants of Christ. Then Paul chooses Silas, and they were commended
by the brethren to the grace of God. The church, or the labourers, were, no
doubt, convinced that Paul was in the right. Of Barnabas, nothing of the kind
is said; the subject, as far as he is concerned, drops. Paul enters on a large
and enlarging sphere, and Silas goes with him, supplying, as it were, the place
of Barnabas. Now there we find not only an individual servant at work, but the
joint action of two or more in the service of the Lord. Barnabas might be as
wrong in taking Mark, as Paul was right in choosing Silas; but the principle is
clear. Spiritual judgment is necessary in selecting a fellow-labourer. Forced
association with one we do not believe competent or desirable, is clearly not
according to the Lord's mind.
Thus, in His service, there is such a
thing as association, but no bondage about it. Barnabas was free to preach the
word as much as ever. There was no lack of saints, of course, to welcome
Barnabas, and no want of sinners to be preached to. But Paul would not have
Mark forced upon him, and chooses another; and this is an important example for
us. How completely does scripture provide both for co-operation and for
refusing it! The Lord Jesus keeps His due place, not only in relation to the
assembly, laying down how it is to be ordered, but also in relation to
ministry, showing how the work is to be carried out on earth. The word of God
meets every need.
But there is another thing that is wanted for all of
us. What is this? Simple faith in the Lord, in His grace, in His word. Where
this is not, souls are apt to be cast down by difficulties. Then, when they see
things looking other than what attracted them once, they begin to doubt
everything. How different if our mind is made up for having to do with the
Lord! Let us look well to it that we are subject to Him. Of course, I am not
now denying moral subjection to "chief men" in the fear of the Lord; this may
be a part of subjection to Him; but what we need to have settled is, that at
all times, and under all circumstances, we must please the Lord. He will be
with us; our circumstances may look critical and be trying enough; but we shall
find infinite blessing to our souls - indeed, it is in times of trouble we
prove the solidity of the blessing. Be assured that, as the Lord went through
the cross to His heavenly glory, so we shall find His cross stamped upon every
service; but then, it is the Lord, and it is His cross. Let our hearts,
therefore, be of good cheer.
The two lines of truth here sketched -
the assembly of God, and the ministry of Christ - you will find laid down in
the word of God. Both flow from Christ, instead of being mere voluntary
associations: as to both we lie under a responsibility which cannot be evaded.
The church is bound to receive Christ's ministers, instead of having the right
to choose.* From Christ the power comes; to Christ the servant is immediately
responsible. If a man is called to serve, let him rejoice in, but bow to, the
blessed truth, that he is to serve the Lord Jesus Christ. The consequence of
carrying it out will be, that the world will drop off; it may be even that many
of his Christian friends will look cold. The ministry of Christ was never
intended to work in the system of the world, any more than the assembly of God;
both were meant to exalt the Lord Jesus, and to be an exercise of faith for His
saints and servants. It must be so still. More than that, it was intended that
in the church and the world we should feel the difficulties and sorrows, as
well as joys of faith. I do not doubt the triumph in Christ; but we can count
upon trial and tribulation surely in this world. We may find differences as to
the world. Sometimes too in the church of God there may be fluctuations. Every
one who has served Christ knows something of this. But as to Him to whom the
church belongs, and whom we serve, He remains "the same yesterday, and to-day,
and for ever." The question is, are we prepared to follow Him?
* The
Congregational Lecture on "the Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament,'' by
Dr. S. Davidson, may be compared with what we have seen in scripture. "Let us
now take a church and trace its various proceedings. A number of believers
agree to associate together. In a united capacity they resolve to confess
Christ, to observe His precepts, and to follow His will. They choose pastors
whom they judge to possess the qualifications described in the New Testament.
In this way the believer chosen by them becomes an official person as soon as
he accepts their invitation" (p. 269). "The compact entered into between the
ruler and the ruled may be dissolved by one or both of the parties. The union
formed between pastor and people may be severed " (p. 271). "A minister is
either the minister of one church, viz., that by which he has been chosen, or
else he is not a minister at all. When he ceases to be pastor of a church he
ceases to be a minister of the Gospel, till he be elected by another ..... He
is not made a minister by the act of ordination, but by the people's call, and
his acceptance of it, by virtue of which a solemn engagement is entered into;
and when the engagement terminates, he ceases to be a minister (pp. 252, 263).
No principle seems to me more flatly opposed to God's word than religious
radicalism.
Lecture IV
WORSHIP, THE BREAKING OF BREAD, AND PRAYER.
John iv. 10-24.
The first and weightiest part of the subject now
before us is worship. It most of all concerns us, because it most nearly
touches God himself; and this, I am convinced, is the truest criterion, as well
as the safest and most salutary for our souls. No doubt the breaking of bread
may be included in worship, but it calls for a separate notice, as being of a
complex nature and having a distinct aspect toward the saints themselves;
whereas worship as such is essentially God-ward. Again it seemed due to its
importance to give it a place of its own, as furnishing most impressively, and
in an act which engages all hearts, that which brings before our souls the
deepest and most solemn revelation of divine holiness and grace in the Lord's
death, in presence of which all find their level, all recognize what they were
without His precious blood, what they are now in virtue of it, and above all
what He is who so died in atonement for them, that they might remember Him -
yea, for ever - in thankful and adoring peace.
The, scripture read
to-night shows not only that worship forms a blessed, lofty, and most fruitful
part of Christian life, but that the Lord Himself puts it in contrast with that
which God enjoined in times that are past. As on previous occasions a
consideration of God's ways of old helped us to see more distinctly the fresh
revelations of God in the New Testament, so we shall find in the matter of
worship.
First of all let me premise that there is a certain state of
soul that is needed for worship. God looks for the worship of His children, and
it is a duty in which all of them have a direct and immediate interest; yet
there is a basis necessary both on God's part and on theirs, in order that
there should be real proper Christian worship. So it was with regard to the one
body, the assembly of God, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If there be one
domain more than another where the allowance of man's will is both a sin and a
shame, it is in intruding into the worship of God. Yet is there anything more
frequently done and with less conscience? Is there an act where man more exalts
himself, and does greater despite to the Spirit of grace? Let none suppose that
this is speaking with undue severity. Can one speak too strongly of an
interference which deludes the world, defiles the Church, and destroys the
moral glory of Christ? On a false foundation or rather without foundation man
all the while is but actively dishonouring God, and this in the face of the
brightest manifestation He has made or can make of Himself ; for it is in His
Son. If in truth God has so spoken and acted, then we have God fully revealed;
and we must have one superior to the Son of God in order to find a brighter and
fuller revelation than what we have in Christ,
This then is both the
source of all our hopes and blessedness, and the basis on which Christian
worship proceeds; nevertheless, though it is absolutely essential to Christian
worship that there should be a perfect revelation of God in Christ, this
infinite as it is does not suffice. There is a need on man's part which must be
met according to divine glory. God has not failed to reveal Himself fully; He
has left nothing undone; He has done nothing that is not absolutely perfect;
and all this so that there need be no doubt or question about it.
There was doubtless a gradual unfolding of God's mind and will and glory:
indeed I think we might say that He could not have brought out all His mind
until He gave His Son. But now that the Son of God if; come, we can as
believers say without presumption-" He has given us an understanding, that we
may know him that is true." In fact, we should be deliberately alighting or
guilty disbelieving what God has given in order that He should be known, if we
did not say boldly "We know." Is it not a great thing in a dark world like this
to have God preparing even for His babes, such language as "we know " Yes, and
He would have us prove the truth of these words "we know," not only as to
ourselves but Himself. It is much to have a divine book in which we can, as led
of the Spirit, look back on the past, forward on the future, down upon the maze
of the present, and say as to all "we know." It is infinitely more and better
that we can humbly and truly say, "we know Him, that is true, and we are in Him
that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ." (I John v.)
It is not a
question of how far there may be intelligence developed in the child of God.
There is such a thing as growth in knowledge; but along with it we must also
stand up for the great blessing and fundamental truth, that every soul God has
brought to Himself has an unction from the Holy One and knows all things. Now
the possession of this divine capacity is far beyond any measure of difference
there may be in practical development. Of course there are such differences,
and there is thus room for the exercise of a spiritual mind, and the Spirit of
God no doubt acts through the truth upon us that we may make progress. But then
we may rest confident, as we think of the children of God, that, wherever they
are, under perhaps the most untoward circumstances, God has given them a new
nature., and this a nature capable by the Spirit of understanding and
appreciating and enjoying Himself All the time here below is or ought to be
just the season for growth. It is the school where we are to learn truth in
practice; but then it is the application and deepening in our souls of that
which we have already in the grace of God. "I have not written unto you," says
the apostle, "because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that
no lie is of the truth." (1 John ii.) This is the portion of every child of
God.
But this very privilege indicates the great essential on man's
side in order to be a worshipper. Man as such, unless born of God, is incapable
of worshipping God - no more able to do so than a horse is capable of
understanding science or philosophy. I deny entirely and in principle that
there is any capacity in man, as he is naturally, to worship God. He needs to
be a new creature in Christ; he needs to possess a new nature that is of God,
in order to be able to understand or to worship God. Not that the simple fact
of eternal life, which every soul receives in believing on the Son of God,
alone qualifies for worship; but then God does not give it alone. He has
provided other means of the greatest possible moment, and He has vouchsafed
them not merely to some, but to all His children. In many cases however,
lamentable to say, the appearance and the enjoyment of this great grace may be
hindered. It may be hardly possible to discern either the divine capacity or
the power of worship. But we are entitled always to reckon on the Lord, the
unfailing truth of His word, and the fulness of His grace.
If God has
given a new life to His children, and reconciled them to Himself by Him who has
borne their sins in His own body on the tree, wherefore has this great work
been done? No doubt for His own glory and out of His own love; but it is as a
part of that glory and an answer to His love that He calls upon His children to
praise as well as serve Him now. And we have before us the consideration of
this very subject - Christian worship, which demands the gift of the
Pentecostal Spirit quite as much as either the assembly or ministry can do - a
part of the homage of the children of God, and a return of heart which God
claims from all that are His.
The first great requisite then for man,
in order to worship as a Christian, is that he be born of God as the object of
His grace in Christ, and receive the Holy Ghost to dwell in him. The Lord
teaches the principle of it in the answer He gives to the Samaritan woman-"If
thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to
drink, thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living
water." There we have the kernel., as it were, of worship - If thou knewest the
gift of God." It is not the law, were it of God Himself, though even that she
knew not as one that was under it; for the Samaritans were a mongrel people,
Gentiles really though partially Jewish in profession and form. But even if the
law of God had been known in all its fulness, unimpaired and uncorrupted by
man, it certainly would not have fitted for Christian worship. But the word
was, "if thou knewest the gift of God" -His free-giving; if she knew God as a
giver - that He is acting out of His free bounty and love. This is the first
truth. But in the next place, "If thou knewest .... who it is that saith to
thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have
given thee living water."
All the time God sanctioned the law as a
system, He dwelt in thick darkness; that is, He did not reveal but hide
Himself, as it were. But when the only-begotten Son declared the Father, God no
longer occupied the position of a claimant on man, which was necessarily the
form in which the law presented His character. Of course this character was
right and just and good, like the commandment itself; and man ought to have
bowed to Him and answered His demand. But man was a sinner; and the effect of
pressing the claim was to bring out more plainly the sins of man. Had the law
been the image of God, as ignorant and perverse theologians falsely teach, man
must have been hopelessly left and lost But this was far from the truth. The
law, though of God, is neither God nor a reflection of God, but only the moral
measure of what sinful man owes to God. God is light; God is love; and if man
is in the depth of need, He gives freely, fully, like Himself. Indeed it is
what becomes Him, and what He delights in. "It is more blessed to give than to
receive." It were strange if God were defrauded of that which is the more
blessed of the two. According to the law He should have been a receiver, had
not man broken down; in the Gospel He is unequivocally a giver, and what is
more, a giver of His very best to those whose only desert is everlasting
destruction.
But this is only possible through the glory and the
humiliation of the Son of God, stooping down and suffering to the uttermost for
sinners. How truly and beautifully then the Lord says., "If thou knewest the
gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldest
have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water:" in other words,
had she known God's grace and the glory of Him who freely talked with her, she
would have sought and found all she wanted. Little did she suspect who the
lowly One was whom she supposed to be but a Jew, though she did wonder that a
Jew could be so tender and so bend down to a Samaritan woman. Little did she
think that it was the Lord God of heaven and earth, the only begotten in the
bosom of the Father; had she known but a little of this, she would have asked.,
and He would have given her living water. It is the Holy Ghost that is meant by
the ,living water." Thus in a single verse we have the whole Trinity in one way
or another concerned. God's own grace is the first thought, the source; then we
have the glory of the Person of the Son, and His presence in humiliation among
men on the earth; finally the Son according to His proper glory gives to needy
thirsty souls the living water - the Holy Ghost. Is it necessary to say that
none but a person supremely divine could impart such a blessing?
Here
then you have testified by our Lord Jesus the necessary basis of Christian
worship: first of all, God revealed as He is in the Gospel as contrasted with
the law - God in His grace; secondly, the Son coming down in perfect goodness,
and willing to be man's debtor in the least things that He might bless him in
the greatest by a love which can win the most careless and obdurate; and
thirdly, the gift of the Holy Ghost. What must Christian worship be according
to its true character and object in the mind of God, if all these things are
necessary in order that it should exist? It does in very deed suppose on God's
part a full revelation of what He is in His own nature and in His grace to man.
does assume that the Son has come amongst men in love to make good that
revelation in the thorough putting away of sin by the sacrifice of Himself. It
also supposes that the heart, awakened to its real wants has asked and received
of the Lord living water, the Holy Ghost, not only as the agent of life and
renewal, but as a well within of unfailing refreshment springing up into
everlasting life.
Accordingly a little lower down in the chapter we
have more developed instruction on the subject, although we have had the
foundation of it in verse 10. The woman, when her conscience was touched, and
she learned that she stood in the presence of a prophet, though not yet
recognizing in Him the Messiah, put her religious difficulties before Him for
solution, quite sure that He brought the truth of God -"I perceive that thou
art a prophet," Remark in passing that the essential idea of a prophet, both in
the Old and the New Testament sense, is one that brings the conscience directly
into the presence of God, so as to have His light shed upon the soul. There
were many prophets who predicted scarcely anything, but they were not the less
prophets. Finding herself then in the presence of one who was able to announce
the truth of God, she wants to have the questions of her soul answered. She
turned to Him about that which at all times and everywhere has and must have
unrivalled interest. The world itself, blind and dead, will fight for nothing
faster than its religion. There were differences then as there are now. "Our
fathers," she said, "worshipped in this mountain; and ye say that in Jerusalem
is the place where men ought to worship." The Lord solemnly tells her: "Woman,
believe me, the hour - cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at
Jerusalem worship the Father." He gives a rebuke too: "Ye worship ye know not
what. We know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews." It is clear that
whatever hopes of salvation were held out to the Jews, they were founded on
their belief in Christ. But while He vindicates the position (not the
condition) of the Jews, He proclaims the dawn of a brighter day: "The hour
cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in
spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship him." He could
speak thus plainly and strongly because He was Himself the Son in the bosom of
the Father, and was entitled, in virtue of the glory of His Person, to bring in
worship suited to His own intimate knowledge and perfect revelation of the
Father.
Thereon at once follows the full and distinctive character of
Christian worship. God is made known as a Father calling and adopting children;
nay, more than this, He is seeking children. In this is the fulness of divine
love going out from heaven and for heaven. In Israel men had to seek Jehovah,
and this with carefully prescribed rites and rigid ceremonies: thus only could
even the chosen people in their worship come and appear before God.
Notwithstanding the nicest care, not one could approach into His presence - nay
not even the high priest himself; and if it had been possible for him to draw
and stay near, it was not to God revealed as a Father. God was no more Father
to Aaron, or Phinehas, or Zadok, than He was to the least member of the most
obscure tribe in Israel There was at that time no such manifestation of God.
But now the hour was coming, and in principle come, when the Father was seeking
worshippers. The Jewish system had been tried and found wanting, and was now
doomed. Before God the worldly sanctuary was already fallen, and Christ was the
true temple. The Son of God was come, and this could not but change all things
- not only teach, but change all. No wonder then that there was, in and through
His presence, a new and full display of God, a declaration of the Father's
name. Here Christ makes known the new thing in this point of view; how earthly
worship must vanish, not merely at the mountain of Gerizim, but even in
Jerusalem; that it was a question henceforth of worshipping the Father, and
this in spirit and in truth; for, wondrous to say, the Father was seeking such
to worship Him!
What a truth! God the Father going out in His own
uncaused, creative love in quest of worshippers! Of course, He was
accomplishing this task by His Son, and in the energy of the Holy Spirit.
Still, this was the principle, in direct contrast with nature and Judaism - the
Father seeking worshippers. Not only was it an entirely new character of
worship, suited to and demanding the new revelation of God Himself, but it
necessarily and completely extinguished the old lamps of the sanctuary hitherto
acknowledged in Jewry. Not only was the spurious worship of Samaria more than
ever condemned, but the brightness of heaven, now shining freely, eclipsed the
feeble rays which in Israel were meant at least to make the darkness visible,
and to keep up a testimony to better light that was coming. What had been
temporarily owned and used of God was now becoming a nullity and a nuisance;
and God, as we might expect, brought in the vast change most righteously. Up to
this time man was on his trial. The Jew, as the sample of chosen, favoured man,
was being proved; and what was the issue of it? The cross and shame of the Lord
Jesus. They rejected and slew their own Messiah, little knowing too that. He
was Jehovah. God over all, blessed forever. Justly therefore and after long
patience the Jews were put aside. Such was the moral development of the ways of
God. There was nothing arbitrary, as every one who believes what God declares
in His word as to Israel's rejection of the Messiah must at once see and feel.
In the life and ministry of Christ was a manifestation of such grace and
long-suffering as had never been witnessed or even conceived on the earth. But
now the end was come before God. The Jews, by their conduct, were cutting the
last ties which a people in the flesh could have with God. In rejecting their
Messiah they rejected themselves. But when the cross was a fact, and redemption
accomplished, when Jesus was risen from the dead, the grace and truth which had
come by Him shone out in His work on the cross, and the plenteous redemption,
not promised now, but accomplished, was made known by the Holy Ghost.
Accordingly those who believed were in a capacity to worship the Father. It is
not merely that they had faith in the Messiah, for this they had when He was
here. But now that they had in Him redemption through His blood, the
forgiveness of sins; now that Christ made God Himself known as His Father and
their Father, His God and their God (and this in the power and presence of the
Holy Ghost sent down from heaven), they could draw near into the holiest, and
truly worship the true God; they could say, not only by, but with the Lord
Jesus, "Abba, Father."
Not merely were spiritual life and redemption
needful, but the Holy Ghost also; and accordingly here the Lord adds that "God
is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in
truth." Mark the difference of the language. When He speaks of His Father
seeking worshippers. it is pure grace flowing freely out; it is He who is
seeking. It is not merely that He accepts the worship of His people, but He
seeks worshippers. Yet let us remember that our Father is God. It is a thing
easily forgotten, strange to say; but this is mere fleshliness, and not from
our privilege in infinite mercy of nearness to Him, which ought not in the
least degree to dull, but to increase and strengthen our sense of His majesty.
"God is a Spirit," He says; "and they that worship him must worship him in
spirit and in truth." There is a certain moral necessity here, which cannot be
dispensed with. The truth is, Christ creates, the law never does. The law
kills; what else can it do or ought it to do for sinful creatures ? It would be
a bad law if it did let us off If I deserve to die as a guilty man responsible
to God, then, I say, the law is just, holy, and good in condemning me. It is
the province of the Saviour alone to give me life, and not this merely, but to
give me life by His death and resurrection, without sin, fruit or root, that I
may stand in Him possessed of a new nature, wholly delivered by grace from the
misery, guilt, power, and judgment of the old man.
This is the place
of every Christian. These are the simple but most blessed elements of his life
and standing before God; but then, as they are inseparable from the gift of the
Holy Ghost, so is He absolutely needed that we may worship our God and Father;
and for this purpose and others He is given. Thus we see what the living water
means. "The water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water
springing up into everlasting life." It is the Holy Ghost given by Christ to be
in the believer; without Him there can be no such thing as the power of
worship. But He is given, and the hour of true Christian worship is come in the
strictest sense.
And you that are here assembled tonight, are you
prepared to acknowledge, for any consideration whatever, worship which is not
of this character? You, especially, who are young in years, and perhaps, also,
little established in the truth of God, hearken. You may be tempted, not only
through natural hankering after the world and its worship, but you have
relatives, connexions, friends, who think it hard you do not join them. In
what? In Christian worship? Join them in it by all means. Whenever, wherever
you find worship in spirit and in truth, fear not to join; seek it, yes,
earnestly seek it, Rather would I ask, are you disposed to slight such worship
for that which does all it can to return to the mountain of Samaria if it
cannot reach Jerusalem; for a religious service that is both untrue and formal;
and an order that mingles some genuine worshippers in a crowd of false? How
many there are nowadays who, in word boasting of their heavenly liturgy, in
reality hurry through it with such evident heedlessness as to show that the
sermon is all they care to hear! One might fancy they were men who knew
nothing, desired nothing, but to heal the way to be saved, instead of being
Gods children, called and capacitated to worship the Father inspirit and in
truth. But this is the misery of being in a position which is bound up with
what they value in the flesh and in the world; where worshipping the Father
according to His word never was nor can be known.
I admit that even
this is better than belonging to another class of religionists, nominally in
the same sect, who, being ignorant of Christ's redemption, bear with an
evangelical discourse for the sake of services, the darkness of which is to
them delightful, because it answers to their own condition. Fleshly worship
suits a fleshly state.
My charge is not about the slipping in of a
hypocrite amongst the true - these no doubt may creep in anywhere. The main
point insisted on is the error and sin of embracing the world in divine worship
through a false principle, than which there is nothing in the present day more
common, and in some eyes more desirable. Clearly this is not Christian worship;
but still it is so styled; it is accepted and justified as such; and the
refusal of it is branded popularly as the fruit of a harsh unloving censorious
spirit, instead of being seen to be, as it is, simple hearted desire to carry
out the will of the Lord. Worship there cannot be, unless the ground of grace
is taken: there must be life in the Spirit, nothing less than divine life and
the power of the Holy Ghost working in the worshipper.
Again, it ought
not to be very difficult to discern where there is Christian worship. One can
easily say where it is not. How can it be where there is no recognition of the
assembly of the faithful in separation from the world? Where human formularies
largely displace the divine word? Where the Holy Ghost is not welcomed to work
in the order laid down in scripture? Where anybody may be in membership, and
the evidently unconverted can join in or lead the most serious services? The
invariable effect is that as you cannot raise the world to the height of faith,
the believers who mingle all together indiscriminately must descend to the
worlds level Hence, fine buildings, imposing ceremonies, exciting music, poetic
sentiment, are apt to come in by degrees, where Christian worship is unknown or
forgotten. Hence too the need of legal order, for it seems bold to trust the
grace of God.
You may have Christian worshippers in such a state of
things; for I have no desire to exaggerate; but Christian worship there cannot
be. Do you doubt this? Perhaps the doubt is because you have never known what
worship really is. So much is this the case at present - the thoughts of
Christians are so vague, unformed, and dark-that to many the very meaning of
worship is lost. How many call a building where they meet to hear preaching a
place of worship; and when they go to hear, they think and say they are going
to worship? Does not all this show that the very idea of worship is unknown?
Nor is it to be wondered at. The truth is, there is a great deal of preaching
of Christ in these days, much calculated to arouse and also to win souls; but
where is there a full setting forth of the Gospel of God's grace ? That Christ
is preached at all is a matter for which we have to thank God. Souls are
converted, and learn, as far as the usual orthodox testimony goes, what is most
true of their sins and their. danger; but we want the gospel of God fully
proclaimed - the gospel as we see it set forth in the epistles - the glad news
not only that the work of Christ has put sin away, but that the believer stands
in a new life and relationship with God, of which the Holy Ghost is given as
the seal. Where this is known, worship is the simple necessary fruit; the
heart, thus set free by grace, goes out to God in thanksgiving and praise.
So in the chapter we began with, the believer enjoys not only a new
life communicated, but a well of water within him., which springs up into
everlasting life. Thus, by the energy of the Holy Spirit given to us, we
possess, as a conscious thing, perfect, unbroken peace, and we cannot but
breathe the joy of our ransomed souls to the praise of our Saviour God. As a
fact this may not be found among the children of God, save few comparatively;
because in general, where there is a perception of Christ, they put the law in
the place of the Holy Ghost, and thus fall into the uncertainty which
invariably, where there is conscience, flows from the law thus misused, instead
of enjoying the light, and power, and peace in Christ and His redemption, which
is the propel fruit of the Holy Ghost's testimony to Christ and of His
indwelling in the believer. Here only can you have Christian worship. It is
founded upon the full revelation of grace in Christ dead, risen, and ascended;
and it is in the power of the Spirit of God that this is enjoyed by the
believer. But not this only: for God is a Spirit, and the consequence is, that
Christian worship repudiates formality. "God is a Spirit: and they that worship
him must worship him in spirit and in truth." There we have the nature of God
revealed, and thence is deduced the moral need of worshipping Him in spirit and
truth, not according to earthly form or human will.
This then is the
source, groundwork, and character of Christian worship. But we have one element
more when we pursue the further instructions of the New Testament. In 1 Cor.
xiv. we find it connected with the assembly. We learn there on what principle,
and by whom, worship is now paid to God. This is an important addition to our
knowledge of God's will No one contends for a moment that, the gospel should
not be preached, or that believers should not be instructed in the truth. These
are duties confessedly according to scripture. There we have everything
provided for, that can be needed for the good of the Church, and for the
well-being of souls; we have both the principle and the fact of all Christian
service most clearly laid down in the word of God. Among the rest there is no
lack of testimony to the manner according to which Christian worship should be
conducted. We have seen that none can render acceptable worship to God but
Christians: from it the world is plainly shut out, according to the teaching of
scripture. It is not a question of closing the door, or of excluding persons
from the place where the faithful assemble. It is clear from scripture that
unbelievers might be present where the assembly of God may be gathered; but
they are incapacitated from rendering proper and acceptable worship unto God,
because they have neither the new nature, nor the Holy Spirit, who is the only
power of worship; they neither know redemption, which is the basis of worship,
nor do they know the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, who, with the Son, is
the object of worship. Thus, in every point of view, the world is necessarily
without the pale of Christian worship, and the bringing the world in is a large
part of the sin and ruin of Christendom.
Again we gather from 1 Cor.
xiv. the place which the giving of thanks has in the worship of God; and this
connected, not with any one individual only, or a separate class, but with the
order and operation of God in the assembly. Hence we read (ver. 15), ,,What is
it then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding
also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding
also." Important as singing is, its end is not, of course, the sweet sound: the
essential thing, as we are told, is "singing with the spirit and understanding
also." What a proof that the Lord is looking for the intelligent service of His
people? So in verse 16 we read, "Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit,
how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of
thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" If in Christian worship
there were the utterance of an unknown tongue in the giving of thanks or in
blessing God, it would traverse the rules of edifying the assembly, because it
would leave out those that could not intelligently join their " Amen." The
passage is cited also to show that thanksgiving and blessing, like singing, and
other constituents of Christian worship known to us familiarly, were found from
the first in the Christian assembly.
But there is just the difficulty.
Look right or left - look where you will, where can you find the Christian
assembly? Where is there the gathering together of the children of God in the
name of the Lord Jesus engaged in thanksgiving and blessing, praising and
singing, as we read of here? Yet the assembly of God, meeting as such, is
essential to Christian worship. There might be the best of men chosen to
conduct the service, and the order of praise and prayer might be as faultless
as existing liturgies are open to severe criticism; but what then I Would it be
the worship of the family of God? If not, how could it be of really Christian
character? God looks for the worship of His children in the Spirit. Do you say
that after all it is only the slight difference of several taking part, instead
of one? But grave as that might be, such a difference is not the essential
thing, but this-that there be perfect openness for the Spirit's action by whom
He is pleased to speak. It is not then a question of one main, or half-a-dozen.
On some occasions the Holy Ghost might use one or two; on others, more than six
in various ways. What scripture demands is, that there be faith in the Spirit's
presence, proved by leaving Him His due right to employ as may please Him. It
is not therefore a mere question of one, or few, or many mouthpieces to give
thanks, or bless, or take part in acts of Christian worship. The real and
essential feature is, that the Holy Ghost, being present, should be counted on,
and His employment of this Christian or that as He will. In an assembly where
there were many spiritual men, it would have a strange appearance if but one or
two took an active part in the worship of the Lord. Still, whether few or many
speak at any given time, the only scriptural mode by which acceptable worship
is rendered is where the whole assembly unites in the liberty of the Spirit,
with heart and mind, in the offering of their praises and thanksgivings to God
through the Lord Jesus Christ. The Holy Ghost, acting in the assembly by its
members may think fit to employ one or twelve to speak the praises suitable to
His mind, and according to the condition of the assembly. And what can be
sweeter to all, whether or not they be thus employed as the audible channels of
worship, than to have the consciousness that the Holy Ghost in very deed so
deigns to guide in one and all? The one point of value is, that He should be
free to direct all for the glory of Christ. There is another remark of a
practical kind to be made as to worship. We must guard against bringing into
the assembly our own thoughts of the worship to be offered unto God. An
individual may give out a hymn to be sung in which he delights, and which may
be not only beautiful but true and spiritual in itself; but it may be a mistake
in him to give it out a wholly unsuitable hymn for the occasion on which he
desires it to be sung. Again, there may be some outside the assembly, known or
unknown, who, out of curiosity, are come to see what the worship is like. Now
are you, fearing that they might wonder at the silence from time to time, to
read a chapter, or give out some sweet hymn? Need I say that such a step is
indefensible, and beneath men who believe in the presence of the Holy Ghost ?
Some may think there is liberty to do this or the like; but who put such
thoughts into the mind? Do you think the Holy Spirit is occupied with what
those without may say or think of those within, or anything of the kind ? Is He
not on the contrary filled with His own thoughts of Christ, and communicating
them to us? The becoming thing, therefore, for us to do under such
circumstances is to look from ourselves, and those within and without, to God,
that He, working by the Spirit, may give us communion with the present thoughts
of the Spirit of God about the Lord Jesus Christ.
When such is the
case, how simple is the flow of thanksgiving for His special mercies to us and
all saints? How fragrant the sense God gives us of His delight in Christ! what
praise of His grace! What anticipations of glory, and of Christ Himself there!
All these and more are but ingredients; and they will variously predominate as
the Lord sees fit. Even a lower character of worship, if it be but suited to a
given state, is, in my judgment, a far more pleasing thing to God than any
strain ever so high, which has not the real present energy of the Spirit of God
connected with it.
Further, as to criticism: I cannot think the
assembly of God is the right place for any man to stand up and show his
superior wisdom in; on the contrary, therein, above all occasions, is the place
for the greatest to show his littleness before God. There may be seasons and
circumstances where a judgment of what is given out may not be amiss, but a
duty; but the assembly of God is not the place for such a course. May I not
take the liberty of applying to this what the apostle lays down as to another
innovation: "If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither
the assemblies of God " How, where, could any one gather such a practice from
the word of God? Nor do I confine myself here, or in these remarks generally,
to a bare text, but I am speaking of the whole tenor, and texture, and object
of all that is given us in the scripture. Accordingly, as it is unauthorized,
so the result cannot but be pernicious. What can the effect of criticism in the
assembly of God be but the sowing of discord and distraction where unity and
concord should prevail ? And yet it may be a thing too often done; against it I
would warn my hearers earnestly. All are liable to make mistakes, and all
deserve to be corrected occasionally; but, as a general rule, comment upon
another is altogether out of place in the Christian assembly. There is a meet
time and place for every real duty; and it never can be right to rectify one
wrong by another, however godly the intention
Next, as to the breaking
of bread, a few scriptures will suffice. The Lord's Supper, not baptism, was
revealed of the Lord, we all know, to the apostle Paul, as it is brought out in
the same epistle (1 Cor. xi.) from which much has been already quoted. It is a
holy institution, intimately linked with, and the distinct outward expression
of the unity of Christ's body, which it was St. Paul's work especially to
develop. We have the Lord accordingly there revealing it afresh to the apostle
Paul. He had not sent Paul to baptize, as he says, but to preach the gospel.
There is not the least doubt that he did baptize, nor that it was perfectly
right in him to baptize. But baptism, so expressly charged on the eleven.,
after the Lord's resurrection, is not only a single initiatory observance -'one
baptism,"- but it is for each individual the confession of the foundation truth
of Christ's death and resurrection. The subject of it stands forth as a
believer in Him who died and rose; he is no longer therefore a Jew, or a
heathen, but a confessor of Christ. The Lord's Supper, on the other hand,
belongs to the assembly, and forms an affecting and important object in the
worship of the saints of God. It is primarily and strictly the standing sign of
our only foundation ; it is the witness of His love unto death, and His work,
by virtue of which such as we can worship. No wonder therefore we have the
apostle Paul showing the very solemn and blessed place which the Lord's Supper
claims in the revelations of the Lord to him. "I have received of the Lord
that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in
which he was betrayed, took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it,
and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in
remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had
supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft
as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and
drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." It is evident,
on the face of the statement, what a large and deep place the Lord's death has
in His Supper, No joy, no brightness of the favour of God in heaven, no
consequent communion, nor hopes of everlasting blessedness with Him, can be
allowed for a moment to distract from, or overshadow, the death of the Lord.
But the reverse is the truth ; for the more the Lord's death has its own
central value before the Christian, all these things shine out not only more
brightly but also more sweetly and affectingly to the heart. And so the same
man who was God's blessed instrument for developing the full extent of the
Christian's privileges, is the very one who gathers us around our Lord's death
as that which pre-eminently attracts and fills every heart that loves His name.
From Acts xx. 7, it is plain that the saints should break bread on the
first day of the week, not of the month or quarter. But it is the resurrection
day, not the day of His death, as if we were summoned to be there in mourning
as for the dead. But He is risen, and therefore, with grateful, solemn joy, we
take the Supper on the day that speaks of His rising power. I cannot but
believe that the Holy Ghost records the day for our instruction, as well as the
Act that called together the believers primarily. No doubt the apostle, passing
through after a short stay, discoursed to those assembled; but they came
together on that day to break bread. Have we consented to other thoughts and
arrangements? Or do we act as if we believed the Holy Spirit knows and shows us
the best and truest, the holiest and happiest way of pleasing God and honouring
Christ? The death of the Lord keeps constantly before the soul our utter need
as once guilty sinners, proved by the cross; the, complete blotting out of all
our sins by His blood; the glorifying of God up to, and above all in, death
itself; the manifestation of absolute grace, and withal the righteousness of
God in justifying us; the perfect glory of the Saviour;- all these things, and
infinitely more, are brought and kept before us in those simple but wondrous
words -"the Lord's death!"
To take the Supper in remembrance of the
Lord, and thus show forth His death, is what gathers us together as our prime
desire. There can be no doubt about the meaning of the word of God which
records this for our comfort and edifying; yet how could one infer that such
was His will if one looked at the practice of Christians ? Compare what they
are doing Lord's day after Lord's day, with the obvious lessons of scripture,
and intention of the Lord in so revealing His mind to us; and say whether for
the most part this simple, touching memorial has not been slighted by real
saints, and whether its character has not been changed universally in
Christendom. I speak not of points of form, but of its principle - of such an
interference with its mode of celebration as leaves hardly a single shred
according to the Lord's institution.
Beware of thinking anything can
be of equal moment with duly showing forth the Lord's death. The Supper of the
Lord claims an unequivocal prominence in the worship of the saints. Not that
one thinks of the mere fact of celebrating it, as to time, in the middle of the
meeting. Indeed, it is remarkable how the Spirit of God avoids laying down laws
about the Supper (and the same is true of Christianity in general)- a
circumstance which the unfaithful may abuse, but which gives infinitely greater
scope to the spirit of Christian affection and obedience. This however we may
safely say, that it is not a question of the point of time when the act of
breaking the bread occurs. The all-important thing is, that the Lord's Supper
should be the governing thought when the saints are gathered for this purpose
on the Lord's day; that neither the prayers of many, nor the teaching of any,
should put that great object in the shade. In ministry however spiritual, man
has his place; in the Supper, if rightly celebrated, the abased Lord alone is
exalted. There might be occasions where the evident guidance of the Spirit
brings it early before us, or postpones it late in the meeting, and thus any
technical rule binding it to the beginning, or middle, or, end, would be human
encroachment on Him who alone is competent on each occasion and always to
decide.
This openness may seem strange to such as are habituated to
rigid forms, even where there are no written formularies; but that apparent
strangeness is chiefly due to their habitual lack of acquaintance with the real
presence and guidance of the Holy Ghost in the assembly. Where however the door
is open to the action of the Spirit according to scripture, and where a just
sense of what is in hand pervades the assembly, the Spirit of God, somehow or
another, according to the truth of things in His sight, knows how to adjust the
right moment as well as all else, and to give us the comfort of His guidance,
if the Lord be but the confidence of our souls.
Again it may be that
you sometimes go to the Lord's table and return disappointed, because there has
been no exposition of the word, or no exhortation. Is it possible that you have
gone to remember and show forth the death of Christ, and yet have come back
with feelings of dissatisfaction? How can this be? Is it not the morbid
influence of the present state of Christendom? No doubt there is that in the
natural heart which suits and likes what is now the vogue; and the excitement
of Egypt's food is readily craved, where the heavenly manna is loathed as light
food. Unquestionably we have that within which helps what is found outside;
still it is humbling and afflicting to my own mind that a discourse should seem
indispensable to garnish the breaking of bread, and that there should be a
thought of want in the meeting where the Lord's death has been before the
heart; when one has met around the Lord in His own name with those that love
Him! Do you suppose that there is any service more acceptable to God Himself
than the simple remembrance of Christ in His own Supper?
But, however
that may be estimated, all this has been often and plainly forgotten, and the
Supper of the Lord has not only been made, in many instances, a much rarer
thing than scripture warrants, but its proper character has been tampered with,
and the great landmarks that the Lord laid down have been utterly disregarded,
so that the celebration is become anything men please to call it, except the
Lord's Supper. Say that it is a sacrament, if you will; but one may perhaps
doubt that, if so, it is the Lord's Supper. The Corinthians used to take a
common meal together on the Lord's day; for in those days Christians strongly
felt the social character of Christianity, and one may regret that it has been
ever since so much lost sight of. After the meal they celebrated the Lord's
Supper. The devil, however, contrived to bring shame and confusion among them
at Corinth by license at this feast; some of them got intoxicated. No doubt it
was a dreadful dishonour on the Lord's name; but it ill becomes those to speak
harshly who are apt to utter the loudest reproaches. We must remember that in
those days they had just been brought out of heathenism; and it used to be a
part of the worship of false gods to get drunk in their honour. The Gentiles
did not feel the immorality of it in the way that everybody knows now. It was
thought no improper thing then to be thus excited and worse in their religious
rites, and, indeed, at other times. It is probable therefore, that in this
infant assembly at Corinth it was not counted such an enormity as we know it to
be, that Christians should so far forget the Lord at the agape. What
aggravated the sin was the mixing up the Lord's Supper then and there, it
seems, with the love- feast. Such conduct was destructive of the character of
His Supper. To eat and drink thus was to eat judgment (1 Cor. xi. 29.) What had
been begun in the Spirit ended in the flesh. I refer to this merely for the
purpose of showing that, by bringing carnal feasting into such a holy
assemblage, we lose or destroy its true nature and aim.
Thus, without
confining oneself to the notice of any particular body, the practice of
appointing Particular officials, whose sole right and title it is to administer
the bread and wine to each communicant, is clean contrary to the teaching of
Scripture, and flies in the face of the evident intention of God., quite as
much as the distressing conduct of the Corinthians themselves. For what is the
Lord's Supper? Is it not the family feast? When you derange the Father's order
among the members of His family, or when you bring in those that are not of His
family, its character is gone, it is the family feast no more. Let us then
assume the least unfavourable supposition of a Christian company, and of none
but Christians. Yet supposing that the administration, as men call it, of the
Supper of the Lord is committed to a real minister of Christ, or to all who are
His ministers, as the exclusive prerogative of such as minister only - I put
the most favourable form which can be conceived for the popular notion under
any and all circumstances, it is a human invention, not only without the
authority of Christ, but decidedly contrary to the doctrine and facts recorded
in scripture. I admit ministry most fully; but the Lord's Supper has no
connexion with it. Make it a necessary function of those that rule to
administer the bread and wine, and it bears not even an outward resemblance to
the Lord's Supper. It becomes a sacrament, not His Supper; a manifest
innovation, a decided and complete departure from what the Lord has laid down
in His word. The very idea of a person standing apart and claiming to
administer it as a right alters and ruins the Supper of the Lord. That Supper,
according to scripture, leaves no room for the display of human importance in
the pretensions of a clergy; least of all when the apostles were on earth.
Blessed and honoured of God as these were at the celebration of the Lord's
Supper, they were there in His presence as souls that were saved from sin and
its judgment by the Lord's death. In the regulation of the churches, in the
choice of elders, in the appointment of deacons, they had their own proper
place of apostolic dignity. The word of God clearly and fully proves that the
administration of the Supper by an official is a figment and tradition of men,
wholly wanting the support of scripture.
But there is another point
that often troubles souls, and might possibly harass, even where the bread is
broken in a holy simple scriptural manner - the danger of eating unworthily,
and so of incurring "damnation." Let me meet this at once by the assurance
that, though one has to watch against a careless or otherwise unworthy
participation, there is no thought of damnation, which would indeed upset for
the believer all the comfort of the gospel and the general drift of God's word.
But some may say, "Do not the scriptures assert as much?" I admit the English
version does, but not the word of God; and we must not confound them. We have
every reason to thank God for the English Bible, which, as far as I am
acquainted with the subject, I believe to be as good a version, if not better
than any other current in the world; but for all this, it is only a version,
and therefore a work in which the weakness of man appears, and in which are
found here and there defects which human infirmity has not been able to avoid.
One of these errors is on this very subject (in 1 Cor. xi. 29). The apostle is
showing how essential it is that we go to the Lord's table, which invites us
freely as every week opens, our hearts filled with grateful remembrance of
Christ's self-sacrificing love, who died in atonement that we through Him might
be saved. What is the result of a light heedless state at the Lord's Supper? If
we take the bread and wine at that holy feast as we eat the common food God
provides in our own houses, not discerning the Lord's body - in other words, if
we eat and drink unworthily, it is not the Lord's Supper we are eating, but
rather judgment to ourselves. The Lord's hand will be on such, as the apostle
shows by the case of the disorderly Corinthians; but even in that aggravated
instance, it was expressly temporal judgment, that they should not be damned or
"condemned with the world." On the other hand, there is no excuse for absenting
yourself from the Lord's table. There is no escape from the hand of the Lord,
save by humbling ourselves and vindicating Him by self-judgment, and then
coming. The Lord's Supper is no more a sweet privilege than a solemn duty for
all His own, save those under discipline ; and when we think of the love He has
shown us in the boundless sacrifice He has made for us the deliverance wholly
undeserved He has wrought for us in His own deep. abasement and suffering under
God's wrath on the cross, together with all the gracious encouragement He has
therein brought before us for our comfort, admonition, and support in our
conflict through the world, we cannot but regard the thankful commemoration of
the Lord's death as a paramount obligation which under no circumstances ought
to be neglected.
Another person's fault should not keep me away: if it
rightly acts so on one, it ought to hinder all. Is the Lord then to be as it
were forgotten because somebody deserves censure? Let the faulty individual be
reproved or otherwise dealt with according to scripture; but my place is to "do
this in remembrance of Christ." Again, a sense of my own faultiness should not
keep me back. " Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat,"- not stay away.
He who abstains from the Lord's Supper virtually says he is none of His.
This will suffice as to the breaking of bread, barely as the subject
has been touched. A few words remain to be added in regard to prayer. There is
very often a great mistake made as to this. We hear, sometimes about the "gift
of prayer;" but where do you find it? Show me a passage of scripture which
speaks of a "gift of prayer" in the sense in which people commonly use the
term? What is the effect? It largely binders conscientious modest simple souls,
who otherwise would join heartily in public prayer. But they cannot give
themselves credit for possessing the "gift of prayer." They are frightened by
what is a mere bugbear - by what is really, if they but knew it, a blunder. The
consequence of this for them is, that they hang back, and are silent, when the
meeting would be greatly benefited by their help. Are there not some now
present who know well that they have had many a time a desire to pray, and thus
express the wants of God's assembly to Himself, but who have been deterred
because they feared their lack of a "gift of prayer," and that they might not
be able to pray long enough, or in a way acceptable to some whom they have
heard insisting on the "gift of prayer"? Is it not a fact ? I entreat You,
beloved friends, to listen to them no more, nor heed your own thoughts and
feelings.
Examine the word of God for yourselves, and you will find
that the apostle lays down (1 Tim. ii.), and even peremptorily, his desire that
the men pray everywhere. Let them then commit themselves to the Lord without
doubt, and at the same time remember, that scripture at any rate never even
hints about a "gift of prayer." This brings us to another point connected with
the one I have Just endeavoured to explain. It is in my opinion a mischievous
notion, that those who possess a ministerial gift should be regarded as the
only proper persons to let their voices be heard in the assembly of
God.
Lecture V.
GIFTS AND LOCAL
CHARGES
Eph. iv. 7-11.
I should feel tonight that my
subject was dry indeed and promised little profit to souls, if we had only to
look at gifts and offices in themselves.
It is thus that the subject is
often regarded, and is therefore apt to become not only a barren speculative
question for some souls, but also a snare to others - barren to such as,
looking upon it from outside think that they at least have nothing to do with
gifts and offices, and a snare perhaps as often to those who conclude that they
themselves are especially, if not exclusively, concerned in them. The truth is,
these spiritual functions closely and materially affect both Christ and the
church of God. Attached to Christ as their source, they (at any rate gifts)
flow down from the same reservoir of rich grace on high, whence all the main
characteristic blessings of the church proceed. They proceed from Him in
heavenly places, and therein is the true answer to much., the greater part, of
the aversion some feel to the subject, as if ministerial gifts were only a
means of giving importance to their possessors. It would be hard to think that
such a turn can be anything but a gross perversion of what comes from Christ or
heaven. In truth they are of the deepest moment in God's eyes, as He deigns to
use them for the glory of His Son; and surely the consideration of the light
that scripture affords should be precious to those whose joy as well as
responsibility it is to profit by them; and not least to those who have
personally and most jealously to watch how the gift of Christ's grace is used,
lest it should be diverted from the object for which the Lord gave it to some
selfish or worldly account. It is evident, I think, that simply to state the
source is, in the principle of it, to cut off all excuse for the earthly
aggrandizement, in various forms, which the Lord's gifts are too commonly made
to serve.
But then there is another remark to be made. Not only do
these gifts of Christ spring from Him in heaven, and therefore must, if
anything can, refuse to mingle with the vanity of the world and the pride of
man (I speak, of course, of the gift itself, and not of the flesh's perversion
of it); but besides there is another feature of these gifts, which is of
immense interest to us as believers in the Lord Jesus. They are essentially
bound up with Christianity, not on the contemplative side, but in what is
equally needful, its active and aggressive character. But whether you look at
the source or the character, all is founded on an eternal redemption that is
already accomplished. The more these considerations are weighed, the more their
importance will appear; the more also, it seems to me, the subject of the gifts
of Christ will be seen to be entirely above that earthly and barren domain to
which theology at least would consign it.
Further, is there not a
wrong done to God and His saints, wherever that which the Lord deigned to make
known to us in His word-that which constitutes, rightly applied, so essential a
part of the blessing of the church - is viewed as but a secondary matter that
can be taken up or laid aside at will? In point of fact, such indifference to
His truth is deep dishonour done to Him, and a corresponding loss invariably to
the souls of the saints who thus slight His will. It must be evident, if it
were only from the scripture just read, that the Holy Ghost does not in any way
banish the subject of gifts into some dark corner, if such there can be in the
scriptures - whence we may, if we please, draw it forth from time to time, and
wield it to the best account of our party. In the Epistle to the Ephesians,
where the Holy Ghost has shown both heights and depths of blessing in Christ
and in the church - in the very centre where He shows us too the Lord Himself
in His own glory at the right hand of God - it is there beyond almost any other
part of the New Testament, that we find the Spirit launching out into an
account of the gifts of the Lord to the church.
But, observe, I say
the "gifts of the Lord," because so it is that they are regarded here, rather
than gifts of at Spirit. Indeed it would be difficult to find such an
expression in scripture. There is a passage which seems to say as much in. Heb.
ii; but it is properly "the distributions of the Holy Ghost." You will find
also in 1 Cor. xii. that wisdom, knowledge, and the rest are said to be given
by "the same Spirit." But still, in these things, the Holy Ghost, properly
speaking, is not regarded as the giver, save mediately. The Lord is the real
and proper giver; the Spirit of God is rather the intermediate. means of
conveying the gift, distributing or making it good,- the energy by which the
Lord acts. And I conceive it to be of moment, practically, that we should see
that the gifts which are used to call out and build up the church, and which
are the only true basis of ministry, take their rise from Christ Himself.
Ministry then may be defined to be the exercise of gift, and therefore
it is evident that these gifts of grace are bound up with it in the most
intimate manner. There can be no ministry of the word (properly speaking)
without gift by the Spirit from Christ.
But let us look for a moment
at the development which the Holy Ghost gives to the truth that these gifts
flow from Christ. " Unto every one of us is given grace according to the
measure of the gift of Christ." It is not a bare question of qualities
possessed ; still less is it merely a matter of attainment, let it be ever so
well meant to give honour to the Holy Ghost. It is a new thing given, the
positive consequence of grace; it is the fruit of the free favour of the Lord,
who in these things acts according to His own sovereign will and for the glory
of God.
"And unto every one [or each] of us is given grace according
to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, [taking up Psalm
lxviii.] 'When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts
unto men.'"Although the Lord Jesus was in His person, one need hardly say,
competent at all times, still He was pleased, in the order of the ways of God,
to wait for the great work to be done - and done too, not merely as regarded
man in divine mercy towards him, but in view of the enemy who was to be dealt
with; the power must be broken that had led captive the children of God. Hence
the spiritual enemies were first disposed of, and the Lord is accordingly
represented here as ascending up to heaven on the defeat, the total defeat
before God, of all the once mighty unseen power of evil. Upon this foundation
ministry is built The Lord Jesus goes up into heaven. He has Himself confronted
and defeated the powers of darkness. He has led captivity captive; and thereon
"He gave gifts to men." How completely the door for man's energy and ambition
is closed! How carefully God - alone able to teach us on this subject, and in
His revealed word having, in fact, given us the perfect truth - shows us the
Lord Jesus, from first to last, the one means of good to us, and glory to God
the Father by the Holy Ghost? Do you view Him only as Saviour and Lord? The
truth is, there is not a single seed of the Church's blessing, there is not a
means of acting upon the souls of ourselves or of others, that is not, every
whit of it, connected with Christ. Where we have not apprehended this vital all
- embracing connexion with Him, and where that which assumes to be ministry,
for instance, does not flow from Him only, it is clear there is a something not
to be held fast, but on the contrary to be got rid of ; an object not to be
fought for as if it were a prize, but to be suspected as contraband, brought
into the light of God, and judged in His presence. For whose ministry is it if
it be not of the Lord Christ? and for what are we contending if it be not for
the gifts of Christ?
The Lord then is ascended on high, and from that
height of bliss and glory He has given gifts to men, and the Spirit of God
carefully turns aside for a little, and puts us in the very presence of the
mighty work on the ground of which Christ took His seat there. Now that he
ascended, what is it but that He also descended first into the lower parts of
the earth?" What grace in Him I What infinite love to us, that He might bless
us - eternally bless us. He had, with the Father and the Spirit, a divine
co-equal right to that place of supreme majesty. They alone were competent to
fill it. But He descended first into the lower parts of the earth. He had the
highest place above, if I may say so, naturally and intrinsically. It belonged
to Him as the Son of God, who counted it not robbery to be equal with God; but
He deigned to be made flesh; for, as a part of the counsels of God, it was
needful that He should be man. Without the incarnation there could have been no
retrieving of the universal ruin of man, and of the dishonour of God through
sin; there could have been neither defeat of Satan, nor an adequate and
righteous deliverance for man. But now He descends first into the lower parts
of the earth. He takes upon Him the sorrow, the champ, the sin. To have
condescended to become man, and to live as He lived rejected and abased on
earth, would have been much; but what is this to the cross? He went down to the
very uttermost, and in consequence of this humiliation, He is now as man
exalted to the highest. In His death He retrieved all that was rained - indeed,
I may say, infinitely more. He "restored that which he took not away." He
brought a new and better glory to God than had ever been thought or even
prophesied of in any respect; for I fear not to say that, as all types and
shadows are but the feeble heralds of His glory, so too there is, there could
be, no prediction rising up to the height of blessing that was found in Christ,
nor fathoming the depth of His moral glory in the sight of God. Himself was
needed to come forth Himself needed that the full worth of His sufferings and
cross might be known. Before that there could be no sufficient expression of
His glory. It was out of this descent into the lower parts of the earth that He
went up - out of this thorough coming down by Him who was as truly God as man,
in the very nature which before had borne such fruits of shame and disgrace to
God.
But what a change! Humanity is a nature in which the blessed God
could delight, as He looked upon it in the Lord Jesus. Now too He ascends; and
this, not as He came down; for, descending simply as the Son of God to become
the Son of man, He goes up, not the Son of God only, but also the Son of man.
Indeed, it is especially in this very character of man that we find Him seated
in heaven now. "He ascended up," as it is said, "far above all heavens, that He
might fill all things." On this magnificent ground, whether one looks at the
humiliation on the one hand, or at the exaltation on the other - on this
twofold ground of a height of glory, consequent on a depth of abasement beyond
all thought, is founded that ministry which is according to God, being the
simple exercise of the gift of Christ. And yet could it be credited, if one did
not know it that there are men, and Christians too, who can look upon such a
scene unmoved, if not moved only to spite and sneer and reproach? But it must
be so. To work thus belongs to Him whom the world knew not. No wonder therefore
that it recognizes not the gifts of His grace. Whatever can be made to merge
into the world's greatness, whatever can be altered to suit the age's taste,
the world can admire. Even Christianity and the name of Christ perverted, no
doubt, and regarded only in some partial way - may be adopted. Why even the
heathen were willing to do it! There was an emperor, as probably many of you
know, who would have been glad to put the Lord Jesus as a god in the Pantheon.
And so it is now. Has not Christendom something akin for its success ? It has
taken up piecemeal this institution and that; it has made them the means of
adorning the scene into which God "drove out the man," exiled by Him because of
sin.
But we who believe are assuredly entitled to look above this
world, and there to see, higher than all heavens, our Lord and Master. And what
is He doing there? What is His present occupation, according to that which the
Spirit of God tells us here? He is giving gifts unto men. Let us bless Him for
it! He (Himself a man, for so it is that He has taken this place) is giving
gifts unto men. From on high He looks round about upon this world, and His
grace makes man to be the vessel of these precious gifts, which savour not only
of the person who is there, and of the work He has done, but also of the glory
from which He gives them. They are heavenly gifts. They will not, if He be
consulted, conform to the world's thought or measure; nor were they ever
intended to serve the world but the Lord Jesus, though surely for His sake
serving any and every body.
Let us take care then that we truly are
subject to Him in whom we believe. And let us beware of the evil heart of
unbelief, lest we treat a word of His lightly. Let us remember how easy it is
pretending to honour His word, to let it slip away from us, counting it
something of the past - no doubt to look back on it with reverential awe, but
still as a thing gone by. Is this the living word of a God that lives for ever
and ever? Are you going to treat the Head of the church as if He were dead?
Nay, He never was dead as the church's Head. Indeed! He only took that Headship
as One alive again from the grave, and so giving life ; He only took it when
both raised from the dead, and gone up to heaven : and yet men act as if the
Head of the church were a dead and not a living Lord! And if He is thus living,
what is it for? Is it merely as High Priest, according to the Epistle to the
Hebrews, to bring His people through the wilderness ? There is some tendency in
Christians to overlook the priesthood of Christ; but there is a far greater
danger of their forgetting Christ as the living Head, who still stands at the
fountain-head of blessing, ever in faithful love giving His gifts to man. No
doubt it is all summed up as if it were a given thing here - "He gave ;" and
there is a very interesting reason for such a way of presenting His gifts.
Assuredly the Lord would not Himself put the gifts of His grace in such a form
as to interfere with the church's constant hope of His own return. On the
contrary, He would fix the church in the attitude of expecting Himself from
heaven. Accordingly not even the supply of ministerial gift is so put as to
defer the fulfilment of the " blessed hope " from age to age. On high is the
Head of the church, and as Head it is part of His work to vouchsafe all needed
gifts for men.
Here then is the whole scene of His grace summed up in
one - the Lord gave gifts to men; "and He gave some apostles, and some
prophets, and some evengelists, and some pastors and teachers." We have not a
catalogue of all the gifts. It is not at all in the manner of scripture or of
the Lord to furnish a mere formal list ; for the truth is not written in the
word of God so as to satisfy human curiosity or form a system of divinity. What
is done is infinitely better. He has given us exactly what suited His wisdom in
each particular part of scripture. Hence if we compare, for instance, what we
have here with the first Epistle to the Corinthians, we shall find striking
differences. There are some gifts found here, not there; and some found there
which are not here. Now this is not a thing of chance, nor a matter in which
the apostle used merely his own judgment and decided things after his own mind.
Nobody denies that his heart and mind were deeply exercised. God forbid! But we
may bless God that there was an infinitely wise mind directing all things, and
that there was a judgment which knew the end from the beginning. We shall find,
accordingly, that the apostle mentions these gifts according to that divine
intelligence. Indeed, the reason of it, to some extent, may appear as we
proceed.
First of all, the gifts here enumerated are in view of the
perfecting of the saints, which is the great primary object, branching out into
the work of the ministry, and the edifying the body of Christ, as connected
with it. Now, there, at once, may be discerned the key, or divine reason for
presenting here certain gifts and not others. Here we have nothing, for
instance, about speaking in a tongue; neither have we any mention of miracles.
Why so? What have they to do with the perfecting the saints? The reason seems
to me clear and adequate. Those gifts for signs were of all consequence in
their place; but how could a tongue or a miracle perfect a saint? We see, in
the first Epistle to the Corinthians, that, instead of perfecting, they on the
contrary became a very great snare for the saints. No doubt the Corinthians
were carnal, and therefore they were like children amused with a new toy - with
that which was, indeed, an engine of power. And we know how great a danger this
is, just in proportion to our unspirituality. We have the very solemn lesson,
that even the greatest powers and most astounding manifestations of the Holy
Ghost in man cannot give spirituality, and do not minister to the edification
of the saints necessarily in any way; but, if there be a carnal mind, they
become a positive means of the soul exalting itself, turning away from the
Lord, losing its balance, and bringing discredit upon that which bears the name
of Christ on the earth. In this Epistle, however, God is occupied with His
counsels of grace in Christ for the church, beginning primarily with the saints
as such. He always takes up the question of individuals before He deals with
the church. And how blessed and wise is this! He does not begin with the body
of Christ, and then end with the perfection of the saints. This would be, very
likely, our thought, but it is very far from His. He first puts forward the
perfecting of the saints, and then shows us the work of the ministry, and the
edifying the body of Christ Thus, the true explanation of the passage is, that
it is the development of Christ's love to the Church. His eye is fixed upon the
blessing of souls. It is Christ not only gathering in, but building up-causing
them to grow up to Him in all things. Accordingly, He gives the gifts which are
of grace suited to this end. "He gave some apostles and some prophets."
These are the two gifts which the second chapter of this epistle shows
to be at the foundation, we may say, of this new building, the church of God.
Thus) in the 20th verse, we read, "They were built upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone."
Evangelists, evidently, are not the foundation; neither are pastors and
teachers; but prophets, as well as apostles, are. And we can easily understand
this. We can see that, as God was introducing into the world a wholly new
system when He set His Son at His own right hand - a new work of God in the
church, so there was a new word which had to accompany this work, whereby He
would act upon the saints so as to give them to grow up to the perfecting of
His will and the glory of His Son in this unprecedented thing, the church of
God. Accordingly then we have the foundation laid, and here not Christ alone.
Of course He is, in the greatest and highest sense, the foundation -"Upon this
rock I will build my church:" the confession of His own name, His own glory as
the Son of the living God, is this unquestionably. But still. as the means not
only of revealing the mind of God touching the church, but also particularly of
laying down with authority the landmarks of His husbandry in the earth - the
church of God, the apostles and prophets were thus used. To distinguish them
the former were characterized by an authority in action, the prophets by giving
out according to God His mind and will about this great mystery.
It is
hardly worth while to disprove the notion that the prophets here refer to the
Old Testament. The phrase "apostles and prophets" is strictly limited to those
that followed Christ. Had there been the inverse order - prophets and apostles,
there might have been some shadow of reason for this idea; but the Spirit of
God, in His wisdom, has taken care to exclude the thought. The work spoken of
is altogether new. The apostles and prophets seem to be expressly introduced in
this order. But in the third chapter a decisive reason is furnished by the Holy
Ghost. It is written in the 5th verse that the mystery of Christ, "which in
other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, is now revealed unto His
holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;" so that we have there with the most
perfect clearness riot only the same order AM preserved, but the positive
expression "now revealed." The prophets of the Old Testament, therefore, are
necessarily excluded. These prophets are of the New Testament as well as the
apostles.
But more than this, let me make the remark 'before going
farther, that this character of ministry was altogether new. When our Lord was
upon earth, no doubt there was more or less preparative action for it. He sent
out first twelve apostles; then He sent out seventy to carry a final message to
His people. All this was a thing never found in any age previously. It was
wholly without precedent. on the earth - an activity of love that went out with
a blessing to others. God Himself had not done it; for the solemn word by a
prophet, and the secret action of His grace before, are too distinct to be
confounded with it. Who had ever seen or heard such a thing as a Man on earth
gathering men to Himself first, and sending out from Himself afterwards a
message of love, the glad tidings (not yet, of course, in the fulness which was
afterwards imparted when the great work of redemption was done, but at any rate
the blessed news) of the King on God's part of the kingdom of heaven on the
earth? This is what the Lord did on earth : He sent out disciples or apostles
with the message of the kingdom. And no doubt it was in man's eyes a strange
and to faith a blessed thing, suitable only to Him who had divine grace as well
as divine authority, worthy of and reserved for the Lord Jesus here below. But
it is remarkable that in Eph. iv. the earthly part of our Lord's action is left
completely out, and the gifts here spoken of are beyond controversy dated from
the ascension of the Lord, and shown to hinge on it.
Do I mean to deny
that the apostles were included - the twelve, or, strictly speaking, the eleven
along with the one supplied to fill the place of him that was cut off? In no
wise; but nevertheless their earthly call and mission are quite passed by. We
can all understand that the Lord as Messiah might prepare a mission suited to
Israel, as I have no doubt that "the twelve" had this distinctly as its
reference; for the twelve apostles naturally answer to the twelve tribes. The
sitting on twelve thrones, spoken of in connexion with them also in Matt. xx.,
clearly confirms the thought. What hinders these same men afterwards from
becoming the vessels of a heavenly gift? Thus we can recognize in the earlier
apostles a sort of double relationship. There was a link with Israel which was
conferred by the Lord when He was upon earth in the midst of His people,
dealing with them; but a new place became theirs when the Lord ascended on
high.
But besides the Lord took care to break in upon this Israelitish
form and order, and the apostleship of St. Paul becomes an event of cardinal
importance in the development of the ways of God, because therein all thought
of Jerusalem, all reference to the tribes of Israel, is dropped, and that takes
its place which is clearly extraordinary in all its circumstances and heavenly
in source and character. More particularly this was plain, that the Lord made
manifest what was really true with regard to the others, that they on the day
of Pentecost received that gift of apostleship which was suited to the heavenly
work which they were afterwards to have, in addition to their previous earthly
call and work. Apart from and towering over the twelve stood the apostle Paul,
bringing out into the utmost prominence the Principle that his apostolic
mission was heavenly thing, entirely and exclusively such as far as he was
concerned, Therefore he was the fitted person to say, as it was of course by
the Spirit of God that he did say, " Though we have known Chris after the
flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." The glory of the Messiah on the
earth fades away for the time in a deeper and brighter glory, the heavenly
glory of Him who is now at the right hand of God. It is the same Christ, the
same blessed One, without doubt, but it is not the same glory; and more than
this, it is a better and more enduring glory. It is the glory that is suited to
the new work of God in His Church, because it is the glory of its Head. "Now is
the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God be glorified in
him, God shall also glorify him in him self, and shall straightway glorify him"
Thus, the church being a heavenly body, and Christ Himself, its Head,
being in the actual and fullest sense a heavenly person, ministry takes a
heavenly shape: and these gifts which flow from Him are its first expression.
Hence, then, we have the clear intimation from the scripture before us that
these gifts from Christ on high axe heavenly in their character and source.
Another thing also may be noticed by the way. If we take the bestowal
of these gifts as dating from the ascension of Christ, where is there room left
for the hand of man? Where can you insert that preliminary ceremonial on which
tradition lays so much stress? Who ordained the apostles for their heavenly
work? Who laid hands upon them, as authoritatively installing them in that high
office? You will say that unquestionably the Lord called them when He was here
"in the days of His flesh." He did call them for their mission to Israel; and
when risen, but still on earth, He charged them to disciple the nations. (Matt.
x. xxviii.) But what hands of man did He employ in setting them apart to their
proper heavenly work? Will any believer breathe the thought that this was an
imperfection in their case? Did the new work of God, based on a dead and risen
and ascended Saviour, and carried on by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven,
want anything for its due commencement? If there is no appearance then of that
rite of laying on of hands, which some count not merely desirable, but
essential for all that minister from the highest to the lowest grade, how comes
this strange omission? Who will venture to impeach the regimen of Christ? Will
any zealots for "holy orders," as men speak, affirm or insinuate that the Lord
did not know better than they what became His own glory in His chief ministers?
Let them beware of their theories and their practice, if either lead them to
become "judges of evil thoughts."
In truth, the Lord took care, now
that it was a question of a new and heavenly testimony, not absolutely to
abolish that ancient sign of blessing, but to break in upon and leave no excuse
for the earthly order so easily abused by man. Hence, as if for the purpose of
manifesting yet more distinctly the vast change which was come in the case of
him who styles himself emphatically " minister of the church" (Col. i), there
is no derivation from the twelve apostles that were before him. On the
contrary, from His own place in heavenly glory the Lord calls one who was not
going up to Jerusalem but rather from it; one who had no connexion with the
apostles - nay, so much their enemy, that most stood in doubt of him, after he
was arrested by sovereign grace in the midst of his determined systematic
hatred of Christianity and persecution of all who bore the name of Jesus. What
a proof that not only the conversion of Saul of Tarsus was of the pure and rich
mercy of God, but that his apostolate sprang from the same source and bore the
same stamp as the salvation which reached him. Thenceforward he becomes the
characteristic symbol, as he was the most distinct and abundant testimony, of
the grace that is now not saving only but choosing vessels and fitting them as
instruments for the active blessing of mankind, and especially of the church of
God. It was the Lord Jesus at the right hand of God calling and sending an
apostle to the church. a chosen vessel unto Himself, to bear His name before
the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel; but first taken out from
both Jew and Gentile and then sent to them. (Acts xxvi. 17.)
The same
principle embraced the other apostles no doubt: because they on the day of
Pentecost were made gifts of grace in the highest degree to the church from the
now ascended Lord, its Head But there is fresh and brighter light in the case
of Paul, who was not more truly "as one born out of due time," compared with
all those that went before, than he furnishes in the strongest colours the
unmistakable intimation of the mind and will of the Lord as to the future.
But then it will be objected that after all there was a miracle in
Paul's conversion and call, which takes the case out of just application to
ordinary ministry. A miracle most striking and significant there was, when the
Lord in glory revealed Himself as the Jesus he was persecuting in the members
of His body. Notwithstanding it rested mainly on the apostle's testimony; and
there were not wanting, even in the church of God and among his own converts,
it would seem, those who questioned the apostleship of Paul. His call far from
Jerusalem, his isolation from the other apostles, the very fulness of grace
manifested toward him, the emphatic heavenly stamp imprinted on his conversion
and testimony, all tended to make the case peculiar and irregular and
unaccountable, wherever the old earthly order so prevailed as to cast suspicion
on any display of the Lord's ways beyond or different from the past. Personally
a stranger to the Lord during His manifestation here below, there was no
question of his candidateship, like a Joseph or a Matthias, on the ground of
his having companied with the twelve from the baptism of John till the
ascension. There was no decision by lot in his instance, nor any formal
numbering with the twelve. He was a witness of Christ's resurrection no less
than the rest, yet it was from no sight of Him after His passion upon earth. He
had seen the Lord, but it was in heaven. His was the gospel of the glory of
Christ no less than of God's grace. Thus carefully was the great apostle made
the witness of non-succession, that is of a ministry direct from the Lord
independently of man. No doubt the highest expression of that ministry was in
Paul, who thenceforward becomes the most illustrious exemplar of its source and
character.
Allow me also to put another question. Who ordained the
prophets of the New Testament? when and how and by whom were they appointed?
Who ever heard of hands being laid upon their heads? Search the New Testament
through, if you wish the best proof that the notion is unfounded. Let me come
to the point at once, and affirm farther, that neither prophets nor any other
of these classes were installed of man after that fashion. Here we have
apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers: can you show me a single
instance among these classes where the individual was called by human
authority? Is it denied then that there was such a form of blessing as the
laying on of hands in the New Testament? For my part, I accept the fact not
only in its apostolic application to the sick and to those who had not yet
received the Spirit, but also in its connexion with our subject. The question
is as to its scriptural use? Let me ask, When were hands ever laid on any save
to confer a gift by the power of the Spirit, or to commend those already gifted
to God's grace in a special work, or formally to assign men to the charge of
secular work? It is clear, for example, that Philip, along with his six
companions, had hands laid upon him; but was it for his work as preaching the
gospel? On the contrary, he was one of the seven men chosen "to serve the
tables," in order that the apostles might not be distracted from prayer and the
ministry of the word. "The seven" thereon were ordained to be employed in the
external service of the church. Apart from this, the Lord was pleased to send
him forth in the proclamation of the word here and there; as an evangelist
naturally would be a wanderer, not according to the meaning of the word so much
as the exigencies of the work.
Hence, when the persecution about
Stephen broke out and scattered those in Jerusalem, Philip had a new task which
had nothing to do with his local duties as one of the seven. His diaconal
service would station him at Jerusalem, to take care of the poor, for this was
the purpose for which he was ordained; whereas his preaching Christ flowed from
a gift of that character, not from ordination. In fact as far as the New
Testament speaks - and it speaks fully and precisely - no one was ever ordained
by man to preach the gospel. Hands were laid by the apostles upon Philip like
the rest, after he was chosen by the multitude, and thus he was appointed to
take charge of the tables; for the scripture, perhaps because of a certain
peculiar state of things at Jerusalem, does not positively give the title of
"deacon" in this case, though one does not deny its general justice, for there
was something akin in their duties.
It is certain therefore that
whether we look at an apostle, or a prophet, or an evangelist, or a pastor and
teacher, or either of these last, there was no such ministry instituted for the
church, which itself existed not, until after our Lord's ascension; and in none
of these cases was there the laying on of hands as the initiatory sign or
inauguration of these ministers. All admit the imposition of hands in certain
cases, ordinary or exceptional. The exaggeration of clericalism should not
hinder the Christian from being perfectly fair in dealing with this and every
other question. There is nothing that will dispose of prevalent traditions so
readily and conclusively as searching and submitting to scripture. There is
full and clear instruction there, the effect of which is to confute all that
tends to exalt man and lower Christ, whatever support men may try to extract
from the word of God for selfish ends. It is outside the light of inspiration
that all these errors live; once let that in, and it will soon be seen that the
Holy Ghost is not providing for the worldly honour of man on earth, but for
glorifying Christ in heaven.
What, then, is the genuine meaning and
scope of Acts xiii.? It has long been the well-known stock passage which
theological controversialists are wont to cite for ordination in general. Some
insist on it as warranting their "three orders" of bishops, priests, and
deacons; others allege it as decisive for parity of ministers, whether
Presbyterian or Congregational. The Episcopalian points with triumph to
Barnabas and Paul in the first rank; to Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen in the
second; and to Mark in the third (as, after the dispute with Barnabas, to Paul,
Silas, and Timothy respectively).
This is substantially true and
sound, far preferable to Calvin's remarks (Inst. Iv., iii. 14): "Why this
separation and laying on of hands, after the Holy Spirit had attested their
election, unless that ecclesiastical discipline might be preserved in
appointing ministers by men ? God could not give a more illustrious proof of
His approbation of this order, than by causing Paul to be set apart by the
Church, (?] after He had previously declared that He had appointed him to be
the Apostle of the Gentiles. The same thing we may sea in the election [?] of
Matthias. As the apostolic office was of such importance that they did not
venture to appoint any one to it of their own judgment, they bring forward two,
on one of whom the lot might fall, that thus the election might have a sure
testimony from heaven, and at the same time the policy of the Church [?] might
not be disregarded." The truth is, an to the case of Matthias, it was before
the mission of the Holy Ghost, and there was no question of the Church's policy
or election either; but by the lot the choice between the two was cast, in the
Jewish form (Prov. xvi. 33), into the sole disposal of the Lord.
Only
examine the passage, and the more closely you do so, the better will you be
enabled to judge how little it countenances, how strongly it condemns, every
scheme of ordination which men attempt to base upon it.
In the church
that was at Antioch there were, it is said, "certain prophets end teachers, as
Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen,
who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch and Saul." That is, we have
these five prophets and teachers, while engaged in serving the Lord with
fasting, made the object of an important communication from the Holy Ghost
inspecting two of their number. "Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work
whereunto I have called them." Barnabas had been for years actively engaged in
the work of the Lord; and so had Saul of Tarsus ever since his conversion. Not
only was he set apart in the providential purpose of God before his birth, as
we see in Galatians i,, but he was called by the grace of God from the time
when he was struck down on the way to Damascus. But the Spirit of God now
separates him to a special mission. It is clear that this is not an
announcement of the ministerial call of either Barnabas or Saul: scripture is
arrayed against scripture by all who say so. The previous part of the Acts
proves that Barnabas was long blessed in the ministry of the word within and
without, and that Saul especially was bold and mighty in the work. The latter,
indeed, from the first, brought out the Sonship of Christ in a way which we
have no reason to believe any other had done up to that time, as we learn from
that very chapter which gives us his conversion. The notion therefore that
ordination was the question in Acts xiii. is most manifestly false.
But how comes it that the theologians fail to notice that their determination
to see ordination here destroys their respective systems, as well as
contradicts other scriptures? Who was it ordained Paul and Barnabas, and to
what? These are called apostles in the very next chapter (xiv. 4); and hence
evidently the notion of ordaining Paul and Barnabas is quite unfounded, unless
those whom God has set second and third in the church can ordain the first. (I
Cor. xii. 28.) Again, the truth is that there is not the smallest reason to
call Mark a deacon at that time. He accompanied them as their "minister"
(probably to get lodgings, to invite people to come and hear the word, and in
general to serve them on their missionary tour); but, as for his being their
chaplain, it is mere illusion. John Mark preaching to Paul and Barnabas! The
truth is that he then turned out an indifferent help in the work, because he
soon tired and went home to his friends. However this only by the way.
But it is transparent, that those who turn the account into the ordination of
Paul and Barnabas involve the consequence that it is actually the inferior
class conferring the highest ministerial rank upon them! If they were not
apostles before, they have nothing to allege in support of the dignity but the
sandy foundation that the act of laying on of hands upon them at Antioch
conferred the apostolate! In this case it was an equal, if not a lower grade,
giving a higher rank to those above themselves. Thus, it is evident that the
notion is altogether unfounded.
Is it insinuated then that there was
no meaning or value in this laying on of hands ? That would be indeed to treat
the word of God unwarrantably. It was a solemn and precious act of fellowship
with these honoured servants of Christ. It was an act not only valid then but
valid now. Bat there was no pretence of conferring anything whatever. The real
drift of the transaction is expressed in chap. xiv. 26. It is said, that they
"sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God
for the work which they fulfilled." Such was the aim of the laying on of hands
by their companions in labour at Antioch; for it may not have been the brethren
generally, but only those engaged in the work, and I wish to make every
concession that is fair to those who desire to draw the utmost from the
passage. But the meaning of the act is neither more nor less than a sign of
blessing, or of fellowship with those going forth on their new missionary
errand. It was probably repeated. (See Acts xv. 40.)
The laying on of
hands was of the most ancient date in the Old Testament. Thus Genesis gives it
in the case of a father or grandfather laying his hands on the children; and so
in the New Testament we have the frequent use of it where there was no pretence
of conferring any ministerial chameter. It was a sign of recommendation to God
by one who was conscious of being so near to God that be could count upon His
blessing. The Lord takes up little children, lays His hands upon them, and
blesses them; and so with the sick too when healing some. It was not at all a
question of ecclesiastical order in these instances. No doubt there were cases
where hands were laid on for the purpose of inaugurating an office.
It
is often thought that the same rite was used in instituting elders, as in Acts
xiv. 22, 23, where the apostles Barnabas and Paul were "confirming the souls of
the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must,
through much tribulation, enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had
ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they
commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." But this is an assumption.
It is not exactly said here or anywhere else that hands were laid upon the
presbyters. This silence, if the fact were so, is remarkable. It may have been
probably the case; but scripture takes care never to say it. We have the
statement that hands were laid upon deacons. We know that an elder was a much
more important personage in the church than a deacon. People may reason and
speculate; but I have no doubt that the Spirit of God, seeing the superstition
that was attached to the form of laying on of hands, took care never to connect
the two things together in a positive manner The passage which some conceive
does so is in the first Epistle to Timothy (v. 22), where Paul tells him to
"lay hands suddenly on no man." But the object of this is too vague for a sure
conclusion, the connexion being by no means certain. There is no allusion to
elders expressly after verses 17-19. Thus in the 21st verse we read, "I charge
thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou
observe these things, without preferring one before another, doing nothing by
partiality." How can one suppose elders in particular referred to there ? I see
a general description of his work in verses 20, 21, after which comes the
exhortation on which so much has been built -"Lay hands suddenly on no man,
neither be partaker of other men's sins." It is possible that there may be
included in this an allusion to the danger of haste and carelessness in
accrediting an elder, but the language is so comprehensive as to take in, it
seems to me, every me which might call for the imposition of hands.
But supposing that it did certainly refer to elders and that hands
were laid on these functionaries as well as on deacons, the important and
undeniable fact in scripture is, that elders were never ordained except by
persons duly authorized, who had a real commission from the Lord for the
purpose. Now many may imagine that this is a concession fatal to the free
recognition and exercise of gifts. They may think it yet more strange to find
that those who contend for the largeness of the action of the Holy Ghost lay
the utmost stress upon a divine commission and a definite authority. But be
assured that the two things go together, where they are held according to God.
None will be found to be more tenacious of godly order than the very persons
who plead most for the rights of the Holy Ghost in the church. My assertion is,
that in this very matter of ordination Christendom has missed God's mind and
will, and is ignorantly but not without sin fighting for an order of its own,
which is mere disorder before God. If scripture is to decide, the common plan
of ordination for all who minister to those without and within is a departure
from the order of God prescribed in His word.
Undoubtedly in the case
of "the seven" (Acts vi.) you do find apostolic appointment. The great point in
this case was, that there the congregation elected and the apostles solemnly
appointed. But it was no more than the congregation choosing fit persons to
take care of their poor, &c. Nothing could be more proper. It shows the
condescending goodness of God towards those who gave of their substance and
those who received it. If the church contribute, it is according to His will
that the Church should have a voice in the selection of those in whom they have
just confidence that they will distribute in God's sight not only with good
conscience and feeling but wisely. Thus one sees here a conspicuous instance of
God's wise and gracious care. The multitude chose such men as they deemed most
suited to the exigency. But even here the mere choice of the believers did not
give them that place in itself ; for if all chose, none but the apostles
appointed them over the business, secular as it was.
The principle
tells in a directly opposite way with regard to the elders, and yet more as to
the ministerial gifts of Christ. We have no such thought expressed as a
congregation choosing elders - never in any part of scripture. On the contrary
we have the fact that the apostles went about; and where assemblies were
already formed, in which were persons possessed of certain spiritual and moral
qualifications which pointed them out to their spiritual and experienced eyes
as suitable for eldership, such they chose. Among these antecedents those who
desired the office must be persons of good report, and who, if married, had
only one wife. There were many individuals brought to the faith of Christ in
those days who had several wives. This was a scandal and sure to be felt the
more as Christian truth spread. Such a direction showed what was in the mind of
God. One could not rightly refuse the confession of a man who had two or three
wives, if he were converted; but he must not expect to become an elder or
bishop; he could not be a suitable local representative of the church of God.
Again take the case of a man who had children brought up badly.
Perhaps this neglect may have been before he was converted; perhaps after
conversion he may have entertained the evil notion of leaving the children to
themselves on the faithless plea that God, if He saw fit, would convert them
some time or other. Such mistakes have been made, and miserable have been the
results. Whatever the cause of an unruly house, its head could not be a bishop.
No matter what might be his spiritual gifts, they could not countervail ; no
such man could be charged with the oversight of God's assembly. For such an
office it was not so much a question of gifts as of moral weight. A man might
be a prophet, a teacher, an evangelist - his disorderly wife or children would
not nullify his gifts; but he ought not to be made an elder, unless he brought
up his children with godliness and gravity, and himself walked with a good
report among those without.
Thus the Lord stringently required in such
an official these moral qualifications as - well as spiritual capacity for his
work. Even if one possessed all these things, lie was not an elder because he
had them unless duly authorized. He needed to be ordained; be must have a
legitimate appointment besides. And in what did this consist ? Manifestly the
whole value turns upon a valid appointing power. In what consisted that
competent authority ? Are we to set up or to imagine one? It must be according
to the Lord and His word. Now the Scripture allows of no valid appointing power
except an apostle or an envoy who had from an apostle a special commission for
the purpose.
Where is there such a delegate now that can produce an
adequate (that is, an apostolic) commission for the work of ordaining? You
never saw, neither do I ever expect to see, the like. The fact is, that the
word of God nowhere hints at the continuance of an ordaining power. It
demonstrates in the most explicit manner that, after the Lord set up churches
here and there, when He established local functionaries in each church,
apostolic appointment or choice and this only was what He stamped with His
approval. The requisite qualifications are clearly laid down; but the fact is
equally clear that none but an apostle or an apostolic delegate was warranted
to nominate the elders to their office, and not a word about perpetuating that
power of appointment after the apostles left the earth. We have an apostle
writing, not to the church or churches to choose elders, but to one who was
specially charged to do this task. Yet even to Titus there is not a word about
another continuing the task; nay, not a hint that Titus himself was to continue
it after the apostle was dead. Neither was Titus authorized to appoint where he
pleased, but the apostle assigns him the sphere of his commission. Being a
special envoy of the apostle, Titus was doubtless a teacher and preacher. But
here there was a definite region where he had the duty of ordaining elders in
every city. Titus was responsible for doing this in Crete; but nothing is said
of the establishment of elders elsewhere or at other times nor of his permanent
continuance there. On the contrary - and this would be a strange direction for
a diocesan - he was to be diligent to come to the apostle at Nicopolis. He was
not to be left at Crete.
It is evident that such directions as these
from the apostle to Titus afford no warrant for others to appoint elders now.
This is pure assumption, whereas all depends on a valid authority. Titus was
apostolically commissioned and could produce an inspired letter of instructions
to him personally. Who can today do anything analogous? " It must be so" is a
poor and vain reason to him who respects due authority. It is easy to settle
matters after a sort where this is allowed to pass; but, beloved friends, we
want the word of God. Let me ask for a plain answer to the question, Do you
believe that the word is perfect? Do you doubt whether the Lord, who cares for
His own order in the church, did or did not foresee all the need and
difficulty? Do you insinuate that He forgot anything of real value to us now ?
Do you suppose that He omitted to take into account the death of the apostles?
He did nothing of the kind. The apostle speaks distinctly of his death (and
more than one apostle too). He speaks of perilous times and the importance of
scripture after he was gone; but not a thought about a line of successors to
appoint afterwards, not a hint about bequeathing his powers in this case. To
you who are commended to God and the word of His grace, to you who tremble at
His word, is that silence nothing ? To my own mind it is a fact not more
surprising at the first blush than increasingly pregnant with meaning the more
it is weighed.
Popery, despising this fact, assumes the contrary from
human reason and is built upon this contrariety. Not that one cares to denounce
any one system in Particular by name, save only to bring out the truth which
shows the will of the Lord and proves the evil by the good. In truth every
earthly system no matter how opposed it may become to the word of God, begins
by adding something of its own to that word. The power of ordination attaches
not to bishops but to apostles and their delegates, The moment you allow men
the principle of development after the scripture canon closed, the moment you
clothe with apostolic authority a body of officials who never were authorized
divinely for the work undertaken, you are off the ground of faith in and
deference to the word of God. The present practice has not the smallest
foundation in scripture.
Indeed one may safely go farther and affirm
not only that the ordination, of which people talk so much, before preaching
and teaching Christ, is not a thing to be coveted in the present shape in which
it is found among men, but that it is now a disorderly institution, a grievous
dishonour to the Lord who gives ministerial gifts by the Spirit. In short it is
a mere and sorry imitation of what is recorded in the word of God. Examine
well, and you will soon find it does not even resemble what we read of them
God's word remains true, sure, and plain: only there once was a positive
personal commission, armed with a certain apostolic authority either direct or
indirect; and this you ought to have if you pretend to ordain elders as Titus
did.
Permit me now to press another question. Which is the most
scriptural course - to do what was always becoming in a Christian, or to copy
an apostolic delegate? Which commends itself most to your conscience, to your
heart, to your faith? We will suppose now in this place an assembly of God's
children. They see in the word of God that beside the common privileges and
duties of all saints, there were certain gifts for ministry, and that there
were also certain offices which needed an apostle or his representative to fill
them up. They would like to have them all of course; but what is to be done?
Are they to neglect what was written to the assembly at Corinth or to the
saints at Ephesus, and to ape what was not written to the church but to Timothy
or Titus? Would it not be humbler to consult the word of God and inquire of
Him, that they might learn what is His will concerning this matter? What do we
see there? That as to the gifts of Christ they never required any sanction here
below before their exercise; nay, they never admitted of human intervention.
The only exception is where there was a positive power of the Holy Ghost
conveyed by the laying on of the apostles hands. Fully do I admit that there
was an exception in such circumstances. Timothy was designated by prophecies
beforehand for the work to which the Lord called him. (Compare Acts xiii. 1,
2.) Guided by prophecy (1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6), the apostle lays his hands
upon Timothy and conveys to him a direct power by the Holy Ghost, suited to
this special service he had to accomplish. Along with the apostle, the elders
who were in the place joined in the laying on of their bands. But there is a
difference in the expression the Spirit of God employs, which shows that the
communication of the gift depended for effective agency not in any way on the
elders but only the apostle. The particle of association appears where the
presbytery are spoken of, that of instrumental means where the apostle speaks
of himself. It was an apostle that communicated such a gift. Never do we hear
of elders thus conferring a gift: it was not an episcopal function but an
apostolic prerogative, either to communicate spiritual powers or to clothe men
authoritatively with a charge. Hence it is admitted that in the peculiar case
of Timothy there was by the laying on of apostolic hands a very special effect
produced ; but who can do this now ? Were this the claim (however one might
desire to view, not indifferently but with the patience of God, the prevalent
and superstitious perversion of a sign, admirable in itself when applied and
understood scripturally), yet if any man now presumed to convey a spiritual
power like an apostle, should one hesitate to call him an impostor? A mistaken
course in assuming the rights of an earthly sovereign is or may be treason.
What is it to pretend falsely to communicate the Holy Ghost or a distinct power
of the Holy Ghost in the name of the Lord ?
Beloved friends, it is a
grave thing to trifle thus with the Spirit of God. There are those in our day
whose ignorant boldness fears not to arrogate the right of conveying the Holy
Ghost and ministerial power in this manner; but, thanks be to God, they an
otherwise known to be fundamentally unsound, so that their influence over the
faithful is inconsiderable. Then we have alas, the Eastern and Western bodies
of Christendom, which are hardly less guilty. But among ordinary Protestants
and especially among men of average Christian respectability, such pretensions
are regarded with pity or horror. Even where the formularies as in the Anglican
Communion approach fearfully near the precipice, the excuse is that their godly
framers intended no more than to impart fitting and scriptural solemnity to
various offices in the church. I admit however, that the excuse is lame, and
that it is hard to decide whether these most suffer in conscience who employ
these very serious forms ecclesiastically without believing them, or those are
most injured in faith who accept as divine pretensions which are doubtless more
respect, ably connected and venerable but not better founded than those of a
modem imposture.
But the important truth on this subject to be seen is
that these ministerial gifts were given by the Lord without any form further
than that He warranted and sent them. Beware of disputing His will and wisdom.
How is one to judge of the possession of a gift ? Undoubtedly by its due
exercise which finds an answer in the conscience. Let me ask you again, How do
you know a Christian? When people talk theoretically, or discuss polemically,
there are always great and numerous difficulties in the way. But if YOU went
for practical reasons to a godly clergyman or dissenting minister, he could
give you ample means of judging who are Christians in what he calls his flock.
Listen to many a man on his knees and, if he be it Christian, he will speak as
a child to his God and Father; but hear him on his legs, and he will perhaps
controvert, without knowing it, what he has been just saying in prayer, till on
his perverse principle he cannot tell. whether God is his Father or not How
happy that there are such seasons of devotion where people speak with
simple-hearted truthfulness! Away from their systems let them speak to God, and
their true characters and even condition will soon be manifest a general rule.
Thus the fact is that in practice Christians have little difficulty in knowing
for the most put who are converted and who are not. There may be a certain
number of doubtful souls of whom we need not speak now. Let a believer be sent
for to a sick man; is he wholly at a loss how to speak? Does he not seek as
soon as possible to gather whether the sick man has peace in Christ, or is
anxious about his soul, or whether he has ever realized his lost and guilty
condition? If the believer finds no sense of sin, he will solemnly warn of
judgment and set before that soul the cross, imploring him to receive Christ;
or he will exhort him to rest in Christ because he is assured of his faith.
If then so little haze really rests on the question who are and who
are not children of God, think you that the possession of a gift is a question
so obscure and doubtful? Some may have more gift than others. But the gift of
teaching implies the power of bringing out the word of God and applying it
aright. Again take the power of ruling-for there is such a thing as rule in the
church, and I hope none here present imagine it is gone - he who has the gift
of rule seeks to exercise it of course according to the word of God. Scripture
knows nothing of a blind obedience. The conscience is awakened, the heart set
free and attracted to Christ. To these is the appeal of Christian ministry. It
is not the blind leading the blind, nor is it the seeing leading the blind, but
rather the seeing leading the seeing. Christ gives liberty as well as life, and
this withal responsible to do the will of God. Therefore it is that according
to the intention of God His children do not well to contrive systems to escape
difficulties; they need faith to go through them with God. Let them prove their
gifts, if indeed they have gifts from the Lord, by real power. There may be
severe trials and difficulties now and then. Even Paul himself had to do with
doubters of his apostleship, and this within the church, and among his own
children in the faith. What true-hearted man should be downcast if he is
slighted? But the time came when the Lord vindicated His servant, and when the
self-will and pride which refused a divine gift was utterly put to shame, if
the heart was not brought back to lowly thankfulness. The chief mistake we are
apt to make is in the way of impatience; we do not allow time and space for the
Lord to work: and that lack of patient waiting only defers the wished-for
solution, because it makes the difficulty so much the greater.
But as
to the discernment of a ministerial gift for preaching or teaching, it is in
general plain and simple. If a brother stand up to speak in the Christian
assembly without a gift from God, he will soon and painfully find it out. If
self-judging, he will learn much from his own conscience; but he may quite
sufficiently soon hear from others that which will make him understand that he
has not a gift in the judgment of his brethren. But where there is really a
gift is it not possible that prejudice may act, and this be refused? Certainly
it may be so for a time. Perhaps the speaker thinks too highly of his gift;
perhaps be mistakes the character of it, and the right scene and time for its
exercise; perhaps he is too exclusively occupied with his line of things, and
too urgent or anxious to assert his gift. All this may be, often is, and always
creates difficulty. But the truth remains that what is of God approves itself
in the long run. My own experience, as far as my limited range of observation
and knowledge goes, inclines me to think that the children of God are prone to
make too much rather than too little of gift. In the present state of the
church there is but a feeble development of gift, and this is felt the more in
proportion to spiritual intelligence and a true position. Do you wish to know
your place fairly and fully? Look in confidence to God and search the word of
His grace. Many things there are to hinder and to draw away: partly the effect
of education, partly the difficulty of finding an honest livelihood, especially
if a man has been a professional preacher. If he abandons (not preaching but)
that profession as an unscriptural innovation, he for the most part loses
everything, even his bread, unless he have private means of his own. Hence it
is that the inducements for such an one to remain where he is we enormous; the
difficulties of coming out at the word of the Lord are incalculable. The power
of God alone can accomplish the change and sustain the. soul in peace and
praise, "steadfast, immoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord."
While we may be sure that the word and Spirit of God give us clearly
the true position for the individual Christian and for the Christian assembly,
we ought not (I think, as things are,) to expect a great variety and strength
in the gifts of the Lord's grace. Of course He can work sovereignly, and
assuredly we ought to be most thankful for what is given. No doubt also there
are gifts distributed somewhere or other. There an gifts of Christ in members
and ministers of the national establishments, I do not question; there are His
gifts likewise in the dissenting societies; and are we to suppose there am none
of His gifts of grace in Romanism itself? For my part I cannot doubt that there
are. Who would, who could, reject the testimony of facts that there have been
persons therein - such as Martin Boos, for instance, not very long ago - used
for the conversion of sinners and for the helping on of saints in some degree?
And are such men not gifts of Christ to the church - as truly gifts though in
the false position as if they were out of it? Their being Romanists - Romish
priests - does not destroy His grace, whatever we may feel as to their
faithfulness. The fact is that the Lord gives according to His own will by the
Holy Ghost, and we ought to acknowledge these gifts wherever they are. If a man
be a dissenter, whether a minister or one of the people, in either case I am
satisfied he is in a false position. It is not a question of a feeling of
dislike to dissent, if one believe its foundations to be unscriptural. I ask
the forbearance of any dissenters who may be here in affirming calmly and
solemnly my conviction that dissent is unsound in its distinctive principles; a
thorough contradiction of the very character of the church as one body; and in
the popular call and choice undermining ministry as a divine and permanent
institution flowing from the Saviour's grace. Dissent is religious radicalism,
which essentially opposes God's will as much as and perhaps more than any other
principle. The proofs are too plain. Dissent substitutes the election of the
people in the place of the sovereign choice of the Lord Jesus Christ whether
immediate or mediate.
But how is the truth better secured in the
national bodies? By patronage, clerical, lay, or governmental! And the painful
apology for this systematic self-will is that the men nominated by the
government of the day, or a landlord, or a college, or a corporation, have gone
through the usual forms! Is there the faintest resemblance between this worldly
machinery and the divine system of spiritual gifts from Christ set forth in
Eph. iv.? I see only One who has ascended up on high. Are you looking to any
other person? to any other kind of ascent ? to any other heaven for the favours
you crave after? I appeal to you as Christians. Do you value the word of God?
Do you cherish that word only for the salvation of your souls? or do you
confide in the same word and Spirit for guidance as to ministry and church
office? What subjects more simply belong to the Lord? For what do we need Him
more? As a believer I surely feel the want of God's word for my daily walk, no
matter what my circumstances or sphere or duties. And do you, can you believe
that the word that lives and abides for ever does not concern itself with so
grave, delicate, and spiritually needful a thing as the ministry of the word;
or that, if it speak thereon, you are not bound to hear and bow?
The
sum of what has been said is then that these two great principles are revealed
in scripture and recognized by the early church: namely, the Lord giving gifts
of His own grace which did not require human intervention; next also a system
of authority which did require that intervention, as in the appointment of
elders by the apostles or persons commissioned to do their work in certain
cases. It is clear that we have neither apostles living on the earth, nor
representatives, like Titus, charged by an apostle to do quasi-apostolic work.
The consequence is, that now, if subject to the word of God, you cannot and do
not look for elders in their precise official form. If any man allege these can
be, it might be well to hear his grounds from Scripture. What has been produced
is in my judgment amply sufficient to disprove it. You cannot have persons
formally and duly appointed to this office, unless you have a power formally
and duly authorized of the Lord to appoint them. But you have not that
indispensably needful power to authenticate elders: this is your fatally weak
point. You have neither apostles nor functionaries commissioned by the apostles
to act in their stead ; and therefore the entire system of appointment breaks
down for want of competent authority. Dare you say of your elders that the Holy
Ghost has made them bishops? You have none really, ie, scripturally entitled to
appoint.
What then? Are there none suitable to be elders or bishops,
if there were apostles to choose them? Thank God! There are not a few. You can
hardly look into an assembly of His children without hearing of some grave
elderly men who go after the wanderers, who warn the unruly, who comfort those
that are cast down, who counsel, admonish, and guide souls. Are not these the
men who might be elders, if there were a power existing to appoint them? And
what is the duty of a Christian man as things now are in the use of what
remains? I say not to call them elders, bat surely to esteem them highly for
their work's sake, and to love and acknowledge them as those who are over the
rest of their brethren in the Lord. I ask you solemnly, beloved friends, do you
acknowledge any to be over you in the Lord?- any living servants of the Lord to
take the lead in Him I Do you imagine such a recognition as this an offence
against the principles of God? Rather let me warn you against picking out
certain favourite texts from God's word to which only you pay obeisance. If we
do so, we are as far as in us lies building up a sect no less truly than our
neighbours. On the other hand, beware of adopting that human invention -
apostolic succession - to escape dilemmas. If under the fiction of succession
we dare to call men apostles who are not, the Lord in due time will not fail to
challenge our word or act, and demand, who entitled us to endorse such an
unheard of thing as this? who gave us leave, without His word, virtually to
acknowledge this or that as an apostolic man by accrediting his claim to
ordain? It is evident that to ordain elders is, however well-meant, an
imitation of what apostles did, and, if unauthorized, not only without validity
but an unwitting usurpation of an authority which reverted and now pertains to
the Lord Jesus Christ alone. Thus in the present state of the church, the
difference between a true position and a false one is not at all that one has
got a due ordination and the other wants it. In truth no body on earth
possesses it now. Do you acknowledge the want? or are you trying to cover the
humiliating but evident fact that you have not the only ordaining power which
scripture sanctions? And yet you go on ordaining, though you have neither
apostle nor apostolic deputy! Which course is most orderly? To do as you do; or
to acknowledge oar actual lack, and carry ourselves accordingly before God and
man - to confess that we want apostles or their delegates, and therefore that
we cannot have presbyters duly chosen and formally appointed? There are, I
repeat, men endowed with such qualifications as would render them eligible, so
far as we can pretend to say, if there were a competent ordaining power, And
the general principle of Scripture (Rom. xii) manifestly is, that he who had
the gift of ruling, or of taking the lead among the saints, is bound to we it
with diligence (as the teacher, exhorter, and others, are responsible to
discharge their respective functions), even if circumstances made legitimate
appointment to a charge impracticable.
But subjection to the word of
God discovers readily that a state of things substantially analogous to our own
defective condition is provided for in Scripture. The Lord in His wisdom let
such wants be felt in the early church. Thus the apostle was inspired to write
epistles to churches where there were no elders; as for instance the epistles
to the Thessalonians and to the Corinthians. The last was notoriously a
disorderly church, and elders might have been thought useful there.
Nevertheless not the least word or hint about elders there is heard from first
to last. Had elders been then in their midst, would not the apostle have called
them to account, and blamed their want of godly care and diligence in
oversight? Of this there is not a trace. Further, we know it was not the
practice of the apostles to constitute elders in an infant church. Where Paul
and Barnabas chose elders for the disciples, it was in assemblies that had
existed probably for years, and thus there bad been time for spiritual
qualifications to be developed. But in a new assembly, where the saints were
young comparatively, a certain time had to be allowed, so that those who were
competent for such a work should be made evident, Accordingly it is rather a
rare thing to read of the apostles choosing or appointing elders.
On
the other hand, in the first epistle to the Thessalonians, we have in the last
chapter very important instruction given to the saints. They, too, are a
similar instance of a young church, yet they were told to own those that
laboured among them. Hence all this may be where presbyters are not. Thus in 1
Thess. v. 12, 13 the apostle writes, "We beseech you, brethren, to know them
which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to
esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake." The presence of elders
is not requisite in order to have and to own those who are over us in the Lord.
There is much of importance for us now in that Scripture, for we have elders no
more than they. I think we ought to lay its exhortations to heart, There are
within and without, not a few ill-instructed souls who hold the notion that,
unless there be official appointment, they cannot have anybody over them in the
Lord. This is all a mistake. No doubt, when a man was officially appointed,
there was a definite guarantee in the face of the church given by an apostle or
an apostolic man; and there was thereby no little weight given to those who
were thus appointed. Such a sanction had great and just value in the church,
and would be of consequence among the unruly. But none the less did God know
how to provide instruction for assemblies where there was not yet official
oversight. How merciful for times when, for want of apostles, there could be no
elders! But it will be noticed that the Corinthian assembly abounded in gift,
though elders are seen nowhere among them. The Thessalonians do not appear to
have possessed the same variety of outward power, while elders or bishops again
are never hinted at. Yet at Corinth the household of Stephanas devoted
themselves regularly to the service of the saints; and the apostle beseeches
the brethren to submit themselves to such, and to every one that helped and
laboured. The Thessalonians be prays to know those who laboured among them, and
presided in the Lord, and admonished them. Evidently this did not depend upon
their being apostolically appointed, which could hardly have been in their
circumstances as lately gathered. It is founded upon that which after all is
intrinsically better. if we must be content with one blessing out of two.
Surely, if it comes to be a question between real spiritual power and outward
office, no Christian ought to hesitate between them. To have the power and the
office combine is no doubt the best of all, when the Lord is please to give
both ; but in those early days we see that individuals were often and rightly
engaged in the work of the Lord before there could be the seal of an apostle,
as it were, affixed; and such the apostle encourages and commends earnestly to
the love and esteem of the saints before and independently of that sea. How
precious that we can fall back on this principle now!
Even at Corinth
and Thessalonica then those were raised up in the midst of the saints who
showed spiritual ability in guiding and directing others. That was the work of
those to whom one epistle exhorted subjection, and whom the other epistle
commended as "over them in the Lord." Such men as these did not labour only;
because some might be actively engaged in the Lord's work who might not be over
others in the Lord. But these manifested power to meet difficulties in the
church, and to battle with that which was ensnaring souls, and so to guide and
encourage the weak and baffle the efforts of the enemy. They were not afraid to
trust the Lord in times of trial and danger, and therefore the Lord used them,
giving them power to discern and courage to act upon what they did discern.
This was part of what fitted them to take the lead in the Lord. There were such
at Thessalonica as well as at Corinth, and yet there is not the slightest
intimation that they were regularly installed as elders, but on the contrary
the strongest evidence that elders as yet had not been constituted in either
place. The regular practice was to appoint elders after a certain time; indeed
it could only be when the apostles came round, or sent an authorized delegate
to choose fit persons and clothe them with a title before the church which none
but the bad would dispute.
Need I observe how God had been graciously
providing for the wants of His children? This subject will come definitely
before us on the next occasion on which it will be my lot to address you. I
will not therefore do more now than draw attention to His far-reaching wisdom
in meeting the difficulties of the day, when a valid authority to ordain as the
apostles did is not left on the earth. Not that His children are left without
help; they have the same Lord and the same ever-present Spirit. Hence there is
no need of some change or new invention to meet the difficulties of the day,
but the return in faith to what was and is the will of the Lord; and this with
intelligence of the actual state of the church, and the feelings which become
it.
We have seen that, as the rule, the Lord alone gave these gifts of
ministry: it depends upon His love to His church, His faithfulness to the
saints. Is the Lord Jesus one whit less tender and true now than He was on the
day of ]Pentecost? Who would insinuate it? Neither can I sympathize with those
who look wistfully back on the earliest times, as if they only afforded scope
for faithful souls. No doubt a bright halo of grace -surrounds the scene where
the Holy Ghost was first poured out on men with a simplicity and power which
carried all along; but who was the spring and whence the energy which produced
fruits so much the more wondrous when we think of the soil once so hard, and
stubborn , and cold? Was it not the Lord acting for His own name by the Holy
Ghost after He took the place, in risen and ascended glory, of giving gifts to
men? Is not His grace as equal to these perilous times as He proved Himself
when ushering in the mystery that was hid from ages? Are there saints to be
perfected and ministerial work to be done? Does the body of Christ need to be
built up? Then assuredly His gifts cannot fail till the work is done and all
are brought into the unity of the faith; and the many adversaries and subtle
snares and increasing perils will only draw the more upon the faithful love of
the Lord of all. There is fulness of blessing in Christ for the church now as
truly as then. Would that we but confided in Him more for every exigency!
Are we then to disparage the truth or to doubt His grace by setting up
some work of our hands, some calf of gold, as if we knew not what is become of
Him who is gone on high? Far be it from God's children! Let me suppose you come
together as God's assembly; you know not who is to speak, exhort, give thanks,
pray. To unbelief this is but confusion. Certainly it looks unwise if I forget
who is in the midst; it is unpromising if I do not believe that the Lord is
there; but if assured that He, who has all power in heaven and on earth, loves
and cherishes the church, and that the Holy Ghost, divine as He is, dwells with
and in us, what need I fear? If this position is true for one saint, it is true
for all. For my part I would not dare for a moment to stand upon any foundation
which did not contemplate the whole length and breadth of the church of God,
which did not in its faith and love go out to and embrace all the saints of
God. Of course allowance must be made for exceptional states, as for persons
guilty of sin that would require their exclusion (immorality, bad doctrine, and
such like).
But then if I know that this is the ground of the church
according to Scripture, and that there was no other from the first taken and
acted on by the holy apostles, the question is, Am I upon it? If I am called to
labour in the word and doctrine, the Lord points me out the way. He opens the
door which none can shut, He shuts and none can open. He finds a path for the
feeblest of His pilgrims, and gives them courage, and makes it plain if they
have to serve Him. Let us never doubt Him.
Bat may there not be a
number of gifts? So much the better. If there are five or twice five gifted men
in an assembly, let us thank the Lord: there is room for all. God forbid that
we should sanction the novelty of each minister having his own little flock! Is
it not a degradation for those who so speak, and for those so spoken of ? No
one behaves himself-nay, he does not even know how to behave himself-who does
not bear the sense in his soul that the saints are "the flock of God." But
evidently men do not speak of God's flock, if the divine ground of the church
be forgotten: then it is a my flock," or "your flock." There is always room for
the exercise of His gifts, whatever and however many they may be. Besides it is
a strange time to fear that any could be spared as superfluous.
The
hour warns me that this subject must now be closed. My endeavour has been to
expound and enforce the fundamental distinction between gifts and offices - the
one, we saw, flowing from Christ on high, the other requiring appointment here
below of men themselves authorized of the Lord for the purpose. As for gifts,
they always remain sure as truly as Christ abides the head and source of
supply. As for formal authorization, it is no longer possible because you have
not a duly authorized power to appoint. All you can do in the direction of
appointing, if you will do something, is to set up a paltry and rather arrogant
imitation of the apostles and their delegates. But if you really love the Lord
and value godly order, is it not your bounden duty in the name of the Lord to
acknowledge all His gifts in them privately and publicly in the work He has
assigned them. If the gift be small, acknowledge the Lord in it as heartily as
if it were a great one; and if it be a great one, acknowledge it as humbly and
unjealously as a small one. On the other hand do not try to imitate what the
apostles did; beware of pretending to do what ought not to be thought of unless
there were apostolic power. And as to appointing deacons or choosing elders,
scripture affords no warrant unless there was direct or indirect apostolic
authority which does not now exist.
NOTE ON
ACTS XIV. 23.
The opportunity is taken to furnish clear and
conclusive evidence against the notion that the elders were chosen by the votes
of the churches. The word, if etymologically viewed, means to stretch out the
hand; hence it was applied to election as we say by show of hands, and,
generally, to choice or appointment without reference to the manner. Just so
starts from mere reckoning with pebbles, and was used for voting thus; then for
voting in general, and lastly for the simple resolve or decision of the mind.
The context, not the word in itself, shows which is to be understood. Hesychius
explains by (compare Titus i. 5), ; as Suidas forgives. With all this accords
the usage of Aristophanes, as well as of AEschines, Demosthenes, &c., both
in the narrow and literal sense, and in the general meaning of choice or
designation. Appian, Dio Cassius, Plutarch, Lucian, and Libanius afford many
examples where the word conveys no more than choosing. In these therefore the
idea of popular suffrage with or without the hands stretched out it; quite
excluded.
But a few instances must be given from Hellenistic writers
familiar with the Old Testament and contemporaneous with those inspired to
write the New Testament. Thus Philo, ( ) repeatedly uses . of Pharaoh's
appointing Joseph his prime minister, and of Moses in the place to which he was
chosen by God, and in his selection again of Aaron's sons for the priesthood.
go Josephus (ANT. vi. xiii. 9) speaks of Saul as "chosen king by God," , and
also (ANT. xiii. ii. 2) represents Alexander as writing to Jonathan in these
terms, . "We constitute thee this day high priest of the Jews." This may
suffice to prove what we are to judge of Dr.J. Owen's statement (Works, vol.
xv. pp. 495, 496, Goold's edition) that "Paul and Barnabas are said to ordain
elders in the churches by their election and suffrage; for the word there used
will admit of no other sense, however it be ambiguously expressed in our
translation." Indeed, Beza, Diodati, Martin, and others had committed
themselves to the same thing. Dr. G. Campbell, however, Presbyterian as he was,
repudiated this version of the text, and (in his Prelim. Dias. x., Part v.
§ 7) pronounced per sufragia in the Latin of Beza "a mere interpolation
for the sake of answering a particular purpose." If one do not endorse so
strong a censure, the only alternative is that the gloss sprang from inadequate
research and strong prejudice.
The truth is that we need not go beyond
the New Testament to demonstrate the error; for here as else. where, even when
applied to the most rigid election, never means choosing by the votes of
others, which it must mean to bear the alleged sense. Wherever the word occurs
technically, the person intended does not take the votes of others merely, or
preside as moderator of the election, but is the voter himself. Now in this ewe
the subject in question is beyond doubt not the disciples but Paul and
Barnabas. If any voted by stretching out their hands, it was the apostles only.
Hence the authorized version rightly dropped "by election," the sense given in
some of the older English and foreign translations which had been too much
influenced by the Genevese school and even Erasmus.
The true meaning
is that the apostles chose elders for the disciples in each assembly (not the
disciples for themselves). And this is entirely confirmed by Acts x. 41 and 2
Cor. viii. 19; in one of which passages God is said to have chosen beforehand;
in the other the churches are the choosers precisely as here the apostles.
Neither God nor the assemblies gathered the votes of others: no more did Paul
and Barnabas. But this is the sole testimony which has ever been imagined
directly to favour the popular election of elders; and we have seen that the
inference drawn is assuredly fictitious. For the matter in hand the usage of
the word in the political or civil affairs of Greece is no evidence.
It is perhaps hardly necessary to add that it does not mean the imposition of
hands, for which scripture supplies another phrase never confounded with the
word in question. But this confusion soon began to show itself in
ecclesiastical authors, who not unfrequently employ (Greek) where we might
expect or . This error occurs in the so-called Apostolical Canons, Chrysostom,
and subsequent writers; and it may have led the authorized translators to give
"ordained" rather than "chose" or "designated." Bishop Bilson, in his
"Perpetual Government of Christ's Church," is guilty not of this confusion only
but of the strange error that "the elders" included "deacons." (See chaps. vii.
and x.) But really the discord of commentators is almost past belief, unless
one have read extensively and proved the fact by experience. Thus Hammond tries
to extract from this verse the appointment of a single bishop to each church or
city; whereas one might have inferred (without appealing to such incontestible
proof to the contrary as Acts xx. 17, 28) that the plurality of the presbyters
with the singular distributive was as strongly against him as language could
make the cam short of an express contradiction. Had Hammond's idea been meant,
nothing could have been easier than to have written or . On the other 'hand, if
I may trust Mr. Elsley's report, Whitby opposes this ultra-Episcopaliainism on
the equally untenable ground that then elders were such as had miraculous
endowments either directly from God (as in Acts ii. iv. ix. x. xi.) or through
an apostolic medium (as in Acts viii.), and who had the care at first of the
churches; not fixed ministers, but nearer to the apostles in rank. Can any
statement be conceived more random and unfounded?
The last and perhaps
the worst specimen of this speculation I take from Calvin's Inst. iv. iii. 15,
16, where, according to the author, "Luke relates that Barnabas and Paul
ordained elders throughout the churches; but he at the same time marks the plan
or mode when he says it was done by suffrage. The. words are . . . . (Acts xiv.
23.) They therefore selected (creabant) two; but as whole body, as was the
custom of the Greeks in elections, declared by a show of hands which of the two
they wished to have.'' It has rarely been my lot to meet with a more glaring
perversion of the facts and language of inspiration than this Passage exhibits,
the refutation of which has been already anticipated.
But the close of
the chapter is still more full of perplexity and error. "Lastly it is to be
observed, that it was not the whole people, but only the pastors who laid hands
on ministers, though it is uncertain whether or not several always laid their
hands. It is certain that in the case of the deacons it was done by Paul and
Barnabas, and some few others. (Acts vi. 6; xiii. 3.) But in another place Paul
mentions that he himself without any others laid hands on Timothy. 'Wherefore I
put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by
the putting on of my hands.' (2 Tim. i. 6.) For what is said in the epistle of
the laying on of the hands of the presbytery I do not understand, as if Paul
were speaking of the college of elders. By the expression I understand the
ordination itself (!); as if he had mid, Act so, that the gift which you
received by the laying on of hands, when I made you a presbyter (!), may not be
in vain." That apostolic hands appointed the seven men whom the multitude
elected for the service of tables is clear. But scripture is silent whether
imposition of hands was practised in the establishing of elders; and to me that
silence seems admirably wise, even if in fact hands were imposed, as a divine
provision against superstitious abuse. But what can be meant by the reference
to Acts xiii. 3, connected with the allegation that Paul and Barnabas, &c.,
laid their hands on deacons ? As for the notion that (I Tim. iv. 14) means not
the elders as a body but eldership, and so is to be in sense dislocated from
its evident and necessary connection with at the end of the verse and put in
apposition with at the beginning, I maintain that the grammar is not more harsh
and unexampled than the resulting doctrine is strange. Eldership in scripture
is not a gift but a local charge.
The modern defences of this system
are of no more weight than those of older date. I have before me now Dr.
Crawford's "Presbyterianism Defended," and Mr. Witherow's Inquiry; but they
seem to me neither candid nor successful. The insuperable difficulty is that
presbyters in scripture were never the ordaining power, though they might be
associated with an apostle even in conveying an extraordinary gift as to
Timothy, who is never represented as an elder. Further, the minister is as
distinct from the elders in Presbyterianism as he is from the deacons in
Congregationalism, and is a personage of as high moment in both systems as he
is unknown to scripture. Again, to say that elders are not as distinctly laymen
as the minister is clerical among Presbyterians is inconsistent with the
notorious difference as to style of address, and salary. Both their systems err
in maintaining that the office-bearers were chosen by the people; only those
were whose duty it was to disburse funds or its equivalent. And if there was a
plurality of elders (who were identical with the bishops), there was the
fullest opening for all the gifts of the Lord, instead of that invention of
men, the minister. Elders never ordained elders, but only apostles or their
delegates; and gifted men required no ordination before exercising their
ministry. Nor does η xv. resemble a church-court, ie. a represantative
assembly of ministers and elders from all parts of the sphere of jurisdiction.
This scripture shows us the apostles with universal authority from Christ, and
the elders of the Church in Jerusalem, with the whole Church joining in the
decision. Hence the decrees were delivered to be observed far beyond the cities
of Jerusalem and Antioch, in total discord with Presbyterianism.
Lecture VI.
The Resource of
the Faithful in the Ruins of Christendom
2 Tim. ii.
11-22.
How many elements of solemnity are crowded into the subject now
before us! It is solemn to look over Christendom and survey its ruins, now too
palpable to be denied. It is solemn, on the other side, to think of the
faithful goodness of God, who knew all beforehand, spread it out in the
unerring word of His grace, and has shown us that, if He felt the evil that was
about to cover the scene of the profession of Christ's name on earth, His
loving wisdom descried a sure path - a path the vultures eye does not see,
which nevertheless He gives His people to discern, and by means of which they
can have the happy certainty that they are pleasing God.
To those who
for the sake of the Lord and the truth deplore and refuse to have fellowship
with the current practice of Christendom, there may be a certain necessity to
give as strong proofs as may be of those evils which now abound, and of which
the word of God forewarned when they were but in the germ. Indeed there may be
a kind of temptation to prove the evil, where we fed in anywise the need of a
justification for the path of separation to God. But that tendency is corrected
promptly, and the heart receives its due tone and its right attitude, when we
think who after all is most concerned, and whose honour it is we have to
justify. The Lord preserve us from thinking of ourselves! It is uuworthy of
those who belong to Christ. Be it our boast to justify Him alone.
It
will be my business now to show, not that He needs aught from us, not that His
words of light require the tapers of man to make them more distinct, but that
divine charity seeks the blessing of every one, especially of those who are
comparatively young and uninformed in the truth of God. I hope to give enough
at least of the evidence to show most plainly what the will of the Lord is; bow
faithfully His word deals with us; how worthy of trust both He Himself is and
that which He has put into our hands. This may encourage the most diffident of
God's children to look up with confidence, seeing that the end was as plain to
Him as the beginning, and that for us the only path is that of Christ, for
there cannot be two. He is the way, and as there is but one Christ, so there
can be therefore but one path that satisfies the heart and mind of Christ for
those who love Him.
Am I going to produce strong reasons as if one
needed to justify this? It will be enough to explain what He has pointed out.
To those who know Him there will be the completest justification and the
strongest reason in the fact that it is His path for us, though His goodness
has given, alas! too sure and abundant proof how deeply it is needed.
Further I shall have the opportunity to-night of slightly reviewing the ground
over which we have passed on previous occasions, and of showing how all that is
most precious has been secured to the faithful. Not that the Lord has not been
pleased to take away much. Not that we ought to be unfeeling about anything
that concerns the Lord's power and glory in the church. But if we rightly claim
a higher place for that which concerns God in His moral ways; if we ought to
feel that what brings and keeps before us the grace of Christ must be of deeper
value than any displays of power before men; yet on the other hand, beloved
brethren, it would be a wrong to the Lord if we looked with cold indifference
on the utter weakness of this our day, and the dishonour thus put upon the name
of Jesus in Christendom itself. Alas I there is no place among the outside
strangers to the Lord Jesus where there is more daring enormity done than in
the very scene where men are baptized in His name. When we look back at times
long past, at the early days of the church's pilgrimage on the earth, and the
power of the Holy Ghost then displayed, I am persuaded we ought to feel for the
wounds inflicted in the house of His friends; we ought to be grieved that the
bearing of the church was such that the Lord could not outwardly pour honour
upon her, but was obliged to strip her as it were, and shame her before the
enemies of His name.
Let us own all this, as also the far deeper
sorrow that men so little prize the truth, so tamely feel for the honour of the
Lord's person in Christendom, not to speak of the well-nigh universal want of
feeling even what the church is in its barest and simplest forms, and still
more the total forgetfulness of its bright portion as one with the Saviour, and
of that which the church hopes for in the day to come. Be assured that if we do
not thus feel with the Lord in our little measure, we are not in a moral
condition rightly to act upon His word in present things. It is a lesson of no
small importance to see that the Lord has not given us in scripture that which
admits of bare imitation. It does not suffice to take up the epistles of St.
Paul for instance, and set to work as if we were competent to put in order the
things that are wanting, and ordain elders here or there. It is one thing to
fall back upon the word God has given us, and quite another to assume that we
can reinstate the church now that it has been broken up and rained. It is right
to feel its low estate, but that we should now build up again that which is
thus fallen the very thought proves that the heart in this has no communion
with Christ; that there is a lack of due holy distrust of self; that there is
such insensibility to the true state of things now as unfits not merely for
authoritatively restoring the church, but even for the humbleness of faith that
confides in the actual resources of Christ. For it is an unvarying principle of
God, that when there has been a departure from Himself, it matters not under
what circumstances or time or place or people whether before the flood or since
- whether in Israel or in the church - God insists upon it that the first step
in that which is morally good should be the sense of our real evil in His
sight. When this is the case, the presumption will be far from us that we can
make good that wonderful display of divine power, grace, and wisdom - the
church of GOD! It was the greatest work, so to speak, that God ever wrought
upon the earth (next to the Cross, whereby alone such a work became possible).
God forbid that in thinking of what He has done, we should compare
that which stands alone-alone throughout all eternity! But if we look at all
that has ever been done upon the earth, or even the very making of heaven and
earth, I say, that the work of God in His church - the church of God - was
greater still. And now, we poor leaky vessels that could not keep the blessing,
we that have been through our own weakness and unwatchfulness a prey to Satan's
wiles, and let in the thieves and robbers that have spoiled the house of God,
are we the men to set it up again? Is this the feeling of lowly faith? If it
were bad for man to go away, if it were a grievous thing for Israel to
dishonour the law of God, what must it be for the church to slight God the Holy
Ghost? It is the epistle of Christ, the habitation of God through the Spirit,
the object of His most perfect love, accepted in the Beloved, even in Christ,
made the righteousness of God in Him. What is it then for that church
practically to forego the glory of God here below - to prefer the work of their
own hands to His word and Spirit - once more to bow down to idols graven by art
and man's device ? Oh! it is more loathsome than that which scripture or even
history records of days and men infinitely less privileged.
Think not
that I am exaggerating what Christendom has done or does. Nor do I wish to
dilate more than is absolutely needful upon the painful failure of that which
bears the name of Christ here below. In truth it is not so. But let us hear
what the word of God says upon the subject. Who would allow the thought that He
speaks too strongly of that which He saw from the first, and told us was coming
as He looked into the future?
Let us begin with the Saviour Himself
and see what He intimated to His disciples should be found when He returns
again to the earth, when He summons man to give an account of himself. In Luke
xvii. He tells us not that the world should become gradually changed from a
wilderness to a Paradise, nor that the heathen should lay aside their false
gods and the Jews their enmity to the true Messiah. On the contrary He gives
the disciples the needed warning, that it was to be as in the days of Noah, and
in the days of Lot. These were times of ease and worldliness, when all mankind
was rising up against God; and yet they furnished comparisons for the scenes
which are to meet the Lord as He appears from heaven to judge the world. "As it
was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They
did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the
day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all."
The self-security and love of ease will be substantially the same when the Lord
is revealed as just before the flood. Then as of old men will be engrossed in
the ordinary matters of daily life. Spite of the law, spite of the gospel,
again is seen and will be continued that state of corruption and violence which
brought the Deluge upon the earth no less guilty than utterly unconcerned. And
Christ looks onward to the day of His return: no previous millennium of holy
bliss awaiting Him; no happy rejoicing hearts characterizing the world
generally then; but on the contrary the same moral condition, the same
indifference to God's will and glory which preceded the flood.
After
the flood when nations and tongues began there was another scene more appalling
and degrading, which the same book of Genesis brings before us; and this also
furnishes its sad complement to the picture of the - days just before the Son
of man comes again. "Like also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they
drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day
that Lot went out of Sodom" (most ominous words), it rained fire and brimstone
from heaven and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the
Son of man is revealed."
If we take up now the Epistles, we shall find
the light shed by the Holy Ghost in no way weakens but confirms in every
respect the testimony of the Lord Jesus; only that now we have naturally the
Holy Ghost looking rather at professing, Christendom, whereas our Lord made the
Jews His starting-point and centre.
Thus in Romans xi., without
dwelling at length upon the chapter, the Spirit of God anticipates the end of
Christendom. "Boast not against the branches. Bat if thou boast, thou bearest
not the root, but the root thee." Such is the warning given to the Gentile
professor. The Jews are meant by the natural branches. They had been the
depositaries of promise of old, and had therefore the responsible place of
testimony for God upon the earth. Hence they were the original branches of the
olive tree, the line of promise and testimony on the earth which began with
Abraham. But the Jews broke the law, went after idols, refused and slew the
Messiah. There was a resource in the gospel; but they refused the gospel from
heaven, as well as the Lord their King on earth. The consequence is, that the
natural branches of the olive tree were broken off, and the wild olive, or
Gentile, grafted into the old stock of profession. And this is the warning that
is given: "Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be
graffed in." Has not this exactly been the feeling of Christendom? Contempt for
the Jews, astonishment at their wickedness, utter insensibility as to their own
condition. "Well; because of unbelief, they were broken off, and thou standest
by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear; for if God spared not the natural
branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness
and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but towards thee, goodness,
if thou continue in His goodness."
Let me ask any man that has the
smallest fear of God, or even outward acquaintance with His word, Has
Christianity continued in the goodness of God? Is there any Protestant, any
Roman Catholic, who thinks so? Is there any person, no matter where, no matter
who - a single soul who dares to say that Christendom, the professing Gentile,
has continued in the goodness of God? The Romanist cannot think the Protestant
schism continues in the goodness of God. The Protestant is assured that the
Romish body is the fruit of clean departure from God in superstition; and so we
might run through all existing systems. They may each plead for his own
association; but who will say that even his own has continued faithful? They
may believe that it means well, and would be admirable if carried out; but who
would not acknowledge that it has not been carried out? that consequently no
sect, no portion, no fragment even, has continued in the goodness of God? All
agree that as for the mass of profession outside themselves, it has failed to
testify for the goodness of God. Consequently there rises up from men on every
side the acknowledgment that the Gentile has not continued in it. Not that the
failure is felt as it should be; not that there is adequate confession and
renunciation of our common sin before God. Where sin is really spread out to
God, it will not be persisted in. But at least there is an outward
acknowledgment to a certain extent in the earth now, and quite enough to prove
that Christianity has not continued in the goodness of God. What then says the
word of the Lord? "Thou also shalt be out off." The Gentile shall be out off
for his faithlessness, as surely as the Jew was.
This, remark, is not
in some prophetic portion of God's word, which some might think ambiguous,
though we do not allow the thought for a moment that any part of the word of
God is so. But here in an epistle which every Christian allows to be one of the
most fundamental and comprehensive, which takes up Christianity from its
elements, and through which the Lord has established souls in peace, perhaps
more than through any other portion of His word; it is in this epistle to the
Romans that we have the solemn announcement of the sure cutting off of the
Gentiles. Not merely one part or another but the Gentile profession is doomed
of God, because it has not continued in His goodness; as truly as the Jew is
now cast out from his heritage, a bye-word and a reproach to all the earth,
evidently bearing his doom stamped upon his brow.
To examine many of
the epistles would more than occupy my time. Suffice it to say, that as we
travel down the stream from 2 Thessalonians, which was one of the earliest
epistles written by Paul, to the latest, the Epistles of John and Jude, we have
only an increasing testimony, growing more distinct and urgent and awful. As
the evil grew, so the signs of judgment became more apparent. The Spirit of God
sounds the trumpet with no uncertain note, and wakes up the faithful where
there is an ear to hear. Christendom was gradually being undermined, and would
become, in no long time, the engine of opposition to God-would be made the
theatre of the grossest evil, taking up the abominations not only of the Jews
but of the heathen themselves, and consecrating a system of Idolatry under the
name of Christ and His mother, saints and angels, even more frightful and
guilty than anything ever before found here below. For the very fact of praying
to Peter, Paul, or the Virgin, proves that the light of Christianity must in
some measure have been known, before it ended in so distressing an apostasy.
Does any one think the expression "apostasy" over-strong? Allow me to tell them
that the very phrase "the apostasy" is the expression of the Holy Ghost in the
second epistle to the Thessalonians, where we are told "there is a mystery of
iniquity which now worketh." Only there is now a hindering power. Consequently
it would not burst out into its full development all at once; it was kept in
check for a certain time by the good hand of the Lord for the purposes of His
own grace. But the moment that this restraint was gone, then it would be no
mystery any longer, but manifest lawlessness. It is called "a (or rather "the")
falling away." or the apostasy. This must become ripe, and "the man of sin"
must be revealed. Thus we have too plainly an uninterrupted succession of evil.
This is the vista described in the scripture; a succession of evil that goes on
always swelling in intensity and volume till at last when the restraint is
removed, it bursts out into a yet more fearful issue - not "the apostasy" only,
but "the man of sin." What a contrast to the Man of righteousness, when man
dares to take the place of God in the temple of God!
This then is what
Christendom is to the Christian watchman. It has not of course been realized in
all its force, though I do not deny that there have been various and also
growing manifestations of evil. As the apostle John tells us, "Even now there
are many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time." This is so
much the more remarkable because he shows that the Antichrist was coming, the
great token of which is that there were many antichrists then. They knew
thereby it was the last time. The Spirit would not close the volume of the New
Testament until the worst evil was actually there at least in its germ; and
this being so and descried by inspiration, there was need of nothing further.
The Spirit of God could, as it were, fold up the sacred roll. It was complete.
The mystery of lawlessness is shown already at work, "the man of sin" is
predicted; the mystery of Christ and the Church no longer hid but disclosed.
Scripture had attained its full compass. There remains, not some fresh view of
Christ, so to speak, but contrariwise the unfolding of that Christ whom they
bad already, the bringing out more intimately and appreciatively the light of
the love of God that was in the Lord Jesus Christ from the beginning. This is
the antidote of all Satan can bring - to the many antichrists, and at last to
the Antichrist. I refer to it in order to give a kind of connexion between the
different states - the rise, progress, and final manifestation of lawlessness.
Nay more the lawless one is to exalt himself against the Lord of glory. The
last book of the New Testament shows the millennial reign over the earth,
ushered in by the destruction of the beast and the false prophet with all their
company, as Babylon had been previously destroyed.
Thus rapidly have
we glanced without entering into all the proofs of the doom of Christendom.
They are patent in the general epistles and in particular in the epistle of
Jude where a most energetic sketch is given in the compass of a single verse.
With that power which the Spirit of God only knows how to convey the shadows of
Cain are sketched, then of Balaam, and finally of the gainsaying Core. Is there
nothing for Christendom there ? Is there no sound of sure if slumbering
judgment there? "Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain" -that
unnatural brother, that pretender to religion, who brought his offering to the
Lord but slew the guiltless. Is there no presage in him who received the wages
of unrighteousness - in the man who, spite of himself, prophesied glorious
things of a people that he loved not but would have sold to destruction? Is
there no solemn lesson in the wages received for teaching, it may be, the
glorious things of God, without heart for His people, still less any care or
jealousy for His word, for His will, for His glory? Finally, in the fearful
rebellion of Korah, " the gainsaying of Core," in those who had the ministry of
the sanctuary, in the proud Levites who coveted and arrogated to themselves the
place of Moses and Aaron (the apostle and the high priest of the Jewish
profession), is there no awful warning there? Have you never heard of men
professing to be servants of Christ, and yet * pretending to be priests
strictly, officially, and exclusively-assuming to be authoritative channels of
divine pardon empowered on earth to absolve from guilt before God? I do not
speak only of such as claim in their heathenish darkness to offer a sacrifice
for the dead as well as the living. Assuredly one thinks not with bitterness
about such things as these, but we may -all stand aghast as we survey, the
facts realized in Christendom. If it be a prophecy, it is a prophecy fulfilled
All this may suffice to show how little Christendom has continued in
the goodness of God. Details are needless. The godliest members of the various
religious societies would be the first to confess the failure of their own.
God's controversy is not with one only but with all, though doubtless the
proudest will meet with a peculiar judgment. It is evident also that the word
of God leaves it not to human experience or to spiritual judgment to infer His
thoughts of Christendom; He has pronounced upon it Himself, Hence it is not
presumptuous, but on the contrary the part of humble faith to believe God in
this. How good He is thus to cut off the fear of forming a judgment so stern!
For now he that does not pronounce after the Lord is ignorant of his Master's
mind, or is false to His will. He that would defend or justify Christendom does
not, in effect, fear to give the Lord the lie. From the scriptures enough has
been given to show that the man who can look on Christendom and vindicate what
is around us ignorantly or wilfully slights all the instruction that the Holy
Ghost has given on the subject. Undoubtedly this is strong; but it is the
Lord's goodness which makes the owning of it now to be a matter of sympathy
with Him, and not of a proud claim to superior light.
God's word is
open to all. By it we are all bound to see as He sees. The Lord admits of no
vain excuses that we cannot judge. The Spirit of God, who judges and discerns
all things, dwells in every Christian. He that says he cannot judge Christendom
virtually denies himself to be a spiritual man; but if we do judge that
Christendom has fallen into these predicted evils one after another, and that
what was then but budding is now bearing the most bitter and baneful fruit, I
ask, are we to partake of it? Are we to be insensible to our own share of the
common sin? If the Lord graciously imparts the strongest warning, are we to
satisfy ourselves with that flimsiest and most profane of apologies, that when
the Lord comes He will set it all right? Yes, but it will be too late to set
right my conscious Christ-dishonouring unfaithfulness; it will be to my shame
to live till then indifferent to His word, careless of His glory, regardless of
the Holy Ghost, who is grieved by that which I have been allowing practically.
Am I, or am I not, to refrain from that which insults Him? If I know these
things, am I to content myself without doing them. He who does puts himself in
the guiltiest place of all. Do I know and feel the despite Christendom does and
I have done to the Spirit of grace? Then let me look up in dependence on the
Lord, that I may do it no more, nor settle down in a pretext so lame and
criminal as that the Lord will set all to rights again. Is He not coming to
judge every evil way ? No doubt He will bring in good, and this from above! but
He will judge all evil, and yet more than in times past. In vain then do I
essay to shelter myself under the blessed truth, that the Lord is coming to
display the kingdom of God upon earth. Assuredly, He will. From the heavens He
will come, and fill the earth with the peace and blessing He brings with
Himself, instead of finding it here below. A few poor broken hearts He will
find in the world-a godly remnant, crying out, like the importunate widow in
the guilty city where ruled the judge that feared neither God nor man. Such and
worse will be. the state of things, and in their midst shall He find faith on
the earth ? Yes, but crying out in alarm. And so He will clear the world with
the avenging sword, before He establishes His throne of righteousness upon it.
Of course I speak figuratively now; but the fact will be unsparing divine
judgment; and therefore how blind for any to harden themselves in going on with
sin under the plea that the Lord is coming to set the world and church to
rights!
Allow me to say further, that the Lord has not left us to our
own thoughts any more of the good than of the evil. He has given us His path,
and this is what the heart desires to come to - the resources of the faithful
in the ruins of Christendom. It were strange indeed if the word of God shed no
sure light where it is so needed? Can we conceive such a thing as the Lord
giving His view of the darkening future, and no provident care for His beloved
and feeble and trembling followers? We began with the Lord's testimony about
man's evil; let us see how He ensures good for His people in the midst of it.
For Matt. xviii. we may bless the Lord. Although He is giving instruction as to
the animating spring of the assembly, which is grace, (as law was the governing
principle of the synagogue,) the Lord provides what would be deeply needed, if
they were reduced to a handful "Where two or three are gathered together in my
name, there am I in the midst of them" (ver. 20). Could one conceive more
tender thought, or more evident wisdom than the Lord thus caring for His own in
a dark day? To this the goodly flock might comethat assembly which once stood
out so fair, with its thousands on whom great grace rested. How wise thus to
prepare the hearts of His servants! How well He knew and guarded against the
anxieties of His saints! We know what numbers are to the worldly spirit, and
how apt we are to rest upon that which looks great in the earth. Yet nothing is
more destructive of Christianity. He that has not a heart for the two or three
must be only a dead weight if he were among ten thousand. It might be no doubt
that he would be carried along the stream of happy multitudes; and that which
was thus unfaithful to the mind of Christ might pass unnoticed in the strong
current and new-born delight in the Saviour, transporting all around, as was no
doubt the case on that bright day when the Holy Ghost came down from heaven to
be the herald of the glory of the Lord, and to make believing men on earth the
dwelling place of God. We can understand that at Pentecost the tide of joy rose
so high as to cover all such elements, sure as they were to appear later on.
And soon it came, too soon, when sounds of discontent were heard even
in that blessed habitation of God. Alas! man was there; not God only in His
goodness but man; and behind was the adversary ready to dishonour the one
through the other.
The church, like man and Israel, has to be tried on
earth. What is the declared issue? Never was there such blessing entrusted to
man; but man is as faithless under the gospel as he was rebellious under the
law. The Holy Ghost is slighted as the Son had been; and in the day when
eternal realities are revealed man turns back to the shadows of Judaism,
preferring them to the substantial truth of God. This is the history of
Christendom. And the Lord, with it all spread out before His prescient eyes,
comforts His followers, were they ever so few and weak, with the assurance of
His presence where His name has its central place to their faith.
In
the prospect of coming evil how gracious of the Lord to think, it may be, of
some obscure village of some solitary ship that travels across the ocean - some
comparatively desert island-yea, or of the vast and crowded city, where the
very solitariness of discipleship is more realized sometimes than anywhere
else? Wherever, however, whenever it might be, the Lord gives His own weight of
authority to the two or three gathered unto His name. It is not merely His
blessing-where could He not bless? Blessing He went on high, and never since -
if I may so say - never has He laid down the hands which He then lifted up in
blessing. It could not be otherwise till He come in judgment. His work was
infinite. Who could limit the preciousness of His blood? Who could say that
redemption, like the first covenant, was grown old, and ready to vanish away?
Could any difficulty, danger, or need in Christendom turn that grace back, as
it were, into its spring, or dry up those rivers of living waters which they
that believe should receive? It could not be; but there is more than all that
here. Not only is there blessing but there is also the weight of His authority
guaranteed to the smallest real representative of His assembly. We know that
men shrink back from church discipline; and he need not wonder at this who is
aware how it was made under the, fairest pretences the most abominable scourge
of tyranny the earth ever beheld. One cannot, therefore, be surprised that
Christians who had escaped from the weight of that iron hand should somewhat
shrink back at the bare sound. But we must beware of mistrusting Him to whom we
owe our every blessing, because Babylon, the world church, has perverted His
words. But if there were only two or three, there ought to be as much jealousy
as if there were three thousand to maintain publicly slid privately,
collectively and individually, ways consistent with the character of Christ.
This cannot be unless there be discipline. The obligation of an united pure
walk is bound up with the very integrity and being of God's assembly. It ceases
to be the church of God, unless there be the holy earnest solemn carrying oat
of that which the Lord has laid down. "Purge out, therefore, the old leaven,
that Ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened.,, No ruin can touch this
responsibility for a moment. On the other hand the Lord takes care in his grace
that blessing shall flow spite of failure.
But there is more than the
sovereign action of divine grace, where responsibility may have been little
felt and the will of God misunderstood. The Lord watches over those gathered
together to His name, and is there present in their midst were they but two or
three. What unfailing and inestimable comfort! Conceive for a moment some
Christian awakened to feel that the place of a believer is not to be a member
merely of the ecclesiastical system of the country or of particular views, but
on the contrary that the only thing which suits and is due to Christ is that we
should renounce-we cannot be too lowly, but neither can we be too thorough in
renouncing - every tie that is not connected with Christ. Where we can obey
Christ in the midst of those that are His - where the Holy Ghost is allowed
freedom to work according to the word of God there is Gods church, and nowhere
else. The liberty of the Spirit is to exalt Christ and this only. This is a
universal principle, true of an individual and true of the assembly. It would
be a miserable thing if the assembly were not a scene of true and blessed
liberty; but such it is that God may be glorified by Christ Jesus. There will
be also the consciousness of that which is offensive just in proportion to the
spiritual power that is in the assembly.
A great or a small company
makes no essential difference. The Holy Ghost is sent down to care for the
interests of the name of Christ The two or three weak and ignorant ones
gathered to it at least know that they are His; that they ought not therefore
to belong to man; that they ought not therefore to be under any other tie; that
rules made by one or many or all-if they were the very beat that were ever
produced - are not entitled to bind Christians, seeing that God has already
furnished the only perfect standard not only of faith but of church fellowship,
and that to own another is to dishonour the word of God and the Holy Ghost who
is here to make it good in power. The question is not whether we can do better
than others : God forbid: that indeed were presumption. But this I ask, whoever
you may be (and I trust that, if you are a Christian, you will agree with me),
Which is best, your rules or God's word ? If God, and not you, be the wiser,
how came you to invent these rules? You thought the word of God insufficient,
and you must supply the deficiency? What is the result? Take what is going on
at the present moment, and in any society you like. The very newspapers ring
with the scandal of what is done under the name of Christ. What do your rules
avail? Neither you nor the wisest of men can construct a standard for all time;
and why should it be attempted? God has given His own, and His children need no
other.
We have already the only sure and divine rule The only want is
the faith to value and act upon it. True, the consequences are serious.
Faithfulness to Christ costs much now as ever. But is it not a solemn thought
that now, in this boasted nineteenth century after the Lord has accomplished
redemption, we are only awakening, here and there, to feel that the word of God
is better than the word of man ? What a discovery! Yet it is great as it is
humbling that it should be a new thing-a discovery which many of the children
of God have not yet made. All admit that God's word is infinitely wise for the
soul's salvation. Who, when it is a question of eternal issues, would trust his
soul to the doctrines of men? 'The is felt the value of that word which reveals
the Saviour, and of the blessed Spirit who makes the word precious in the
revelation of Him. But is it no daring to draw these distinctions in the word
of God and to pat aside that which speaks of the church ministry, worship, the
breaking of bread, and prayer How comes it that men should behave practically a
if God's word had less decision and authority in these matters than the
shifting thoughts of man? How comes it that men so seldom think of being guided
only by the word of God ? How comes it that believers resort as a matter of
course to human ecclesiastical rules? How comes it, for example, that
dissenters, the best of them, when they want a minister in the word, proceed at
once to elect him without a syllable of scripture for that course ? Who gave
them licence to do so?
"It must be so; we have our own doctor and our
own lawyer, and why not our own minister ?" it is exactly this worldly
principle that has done the mischief Why is not God consulted in His word? How
comes it that in scripture a church never elects a minister? Of course there
must have been many who wanted ministerial help in those days as now; and God,
who knew all that is good, must have known every want also. How comes it that
there was never a man chosen by a Christian congregation to preach the gospel
or teach the saints - not a solitary instance in the word of God? They cannot
get rid of the difficulty. What are they to do? The fact is, the dissenting
principle is broken at the very outset. They cannot step over the threshold.
They cannot do without a minister, and they cannot elect a minister according
to scripture. Let us look now, not at congregationalism, but at the two or
three gathered to the name of Christ. They too want help, these feeble ones;
and what are they to do ? This is the word of their Lord, " Where two or three
are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them." God
forbid that I should disparagge the advantages of ministry; but to be simply
subject to the Lord, whether or not He sends, is the best of all. The fact is,
as we are not authorized, so we have no need to elect any; for all are ours
already, "whether Paul, Apollos, or Cephas." It is for God to choose and give.
He has bound up and made all His ministers part and parcel of the church. They
are members of Christ's body. They are His gifts to the church. It is ignorant
and evil meddling for the church to elect. Besides, the moment you elect one to
be peculiarly your minister, by that very act you defraud yourselves of all the
rest. You are going out of the path of God in order to enrich yourselves in
this respect; but that very act of selfish haste, like every other departure
from the path of faith, brings, as the necessary result, the surest
impoverishment. Suppose then people get their minister; he may be but young,
and they may want to be nourished and fed up in truth. Unless he have all the
gifts centred in his single person, they are reduced to his individual measure.
Another again may be a pastor, and love the saints; but the congregation for
the most part consists of persons needing to be converted, while he is not an
evangelist but a pastor and perhaps a teacher. How evident that, if tested thus
practically, man's ways always ruin God's work!The parochial system in the
established bodies works as much or more evil. It may seem natural and prudent,
but human wisdom in divine things is as foolish as it is fatal. What else could
be expected by those who know God and man from a departure from the rich
provision the Lord has made?
Let us now look on the other side. The
Lord is there. The "two or three" do not exactly see their way. They are in
presence of a great difficulty. Perhaps they have heard the whisper of some
dreadful doctrine, and they do not understand it, not being versed in these
matters. What then ? They wait upon the Lord - a wholesome thing for any of us
- most wholesome to be obliged to feel that the Lord alone can avail. But He
does love and care for His saints. He raises up and opportunely sends a servant
of His. The latent evil is brought out plainly; and the moment the light of God
by whatever means is east upon it, the conscience of the saints answers to the
call of the Lord, and they repudiate it heartily for themselves.
Again
there is one fallen into what may seem little evil, yet enough to render him
indifferent to the Lord, to His word, to His grace. He refuses to listen to the
warning of one, then of more, and lastly of the assembly of God. "Let him be
unto thee as a heathen man." He is not a heathen, but supposed to be a brother;
yet he is treated as if he were a heathen, because he despises Christ in the
church. This in fact is the case here supposed. (Matt. xviii.) Such decision is
trying to the heart, where will works among the saints. But it shows plainly
that not their wisdom nor their experience guides aright, but the Lord in their
midst; and He promises His presence if it were but two or three gathered to His
name. Here then we have a clear and positive provision for the faithful in the
worst of times. It is hardly possible to conceive of circumstances where there
might not be "two or three."
It is well however to add that the
essential point is their gathering to. His name. It is not such a gathering
unto Christ, where narrowness is allowed, or sectarianism, any more than in the
grosser forms of letting in the world or tolerating evil. If any "two or three"
were so happy together, as to look with suspicion on godly men outside them,
they would forfeit their place of privilege, and be in a false position. Does
the Lord so regard His disciples? Does He scrutinize them as if they were
doubtful characters, or put them in quarantine as if the plague might be in
them? I speak of saints where there is no suspicion of evil doctrine, direct or
indirect, or of unholy walk. The Lord welcomes them, and so should we. His name
has not its value where we are not large for His sake.
But there may
be another case. A person comes of great repute in the world, who has been
preaching and is universally respected; but alas! he betrays himself by a lack
of heart and conscience where Christ is concerned. Him they refuse. Thus the
same name of Christ, which is their warrant for welcoming the weakest that
loves Him, is here exactly the same power for refusing the highest who does not
love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption. What might is in that name to bring
and keep together hearts otherwise alien, and yet withal what a delicate test
for detecting and excluding what is not of God I If it be a question of truth,
the name of the Lord is the only real touchstone ; if it be a question of
discipline, that name is strength to the feeblest heart; if it be a question
between persons and principle, there only is found all needed wisdom and power
both individually and as regards the assembly.
But let us look now at
2 Tim. ii. We have a picture drawn by the Holy Ghost of the professing body,
the house of God. The first epistle duly cares for order and good government in
the house of God. The second epistle anticipates the influx of evils to such an
extent that the house is merely alluded to as a comparison. Still "the sure
foundation of God standeth, having this seal"- on one side, "The Lord knoweth
them that are His," and on the other, "Let every one that nameth the name of
the Lord depart from iniquity." There are thus the sovereignty of the Lord on
one side, and just responsibility on the other-two great principles which meet
us everywhere. Then follows a more detailed application: - "But in a great
house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of
earth, and some to honour and some to dishonour." Some would take the place of
knowing the Lord whom He did not own., and who felt not the incongruity of His
name with iniquity. Timothy must be prepared for the development of evil among
those that confess Christ - not only "some to honour" but "some to dishonour."
"If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour,
sanctified and meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every good work"
Separation from evil is the invariable principle of God, modified as to the
manner of course by the special character of the dispensation. So Isaiah,
Jeremiah, and the prophets generally. Is Christianity less stringent? It is now
on the contrary that it becomes more urgent and absolute. "If a man purge
himself from these [the vessels to dishonour], he shall be a vessel to honour."
Put away the wicked (1 Cor. v.); if this be no longer possible, purge yourself
out from them. There is nothing man dreads and feels so deeply. You may protest
you may denounce, and it will be borne by the world as long as you walk with it
in the main; but "he that departeth," now as ever, "maketh himself a prey." Ad
on your convictions, and the most honeyed courtesy turns sour; your desire to
please God at all cost will be branded as pharisaical pride and exclusiveness.
It matters not how gently and lovingly you purge yourself from the vessels to
dishonour; the pain, the grievance, lies there, and nothing can sweeten it,
above all in the eyes of those it condemns. Indeed it is more felt, the more
graciously it is done, provided it be done thoroughly; for then evidently your
motive is not disappointed feeling but desire to be wholly subject to Christ,
with a heart perfectly happy in what they know nothing of and could not enjoy.
All this is an unpardonable affront in the world's eyes. Add to this,
that separation is claimed in 2 Tim. from the religious or Christian world.
"The Christian world!" what a phrase I what a contradiction ! as if there could
be the smallest possible alliance between Christianity, which is of heaven and
Christ, and that outside world which crucified Him. No wonder that in this
epistle we read of perilous times in the last days. What greater peril than,
after they have known the truth, going back into substantially the same
conditions of evil as were found in the heathen world before Christianity
entered it. Compare 2 Tim. iii. with Rom. i. How painful the resemblance! The
difference is, that some of the grosser characteristics of heathenism have been
replaced by subtler evil. The comparison is most instructive In this state of
things the Christian profession is indeed a great house; and, as in such a
house there is that which is destined to the basest uses, no less than what is
for the best purposes, so in that great house which bears the name of Christ -
if you please, "the Christian world."
If there, what ought you to do ?
It is a solemn question for the believer. He has no hesitation about the
profane world; but the world bearing the name of Christ is a difficulty to him.
Seeing that the Christian profession is there, am I not setting myself up, and
virtually condemning the excellent of the earth? But will you name any evil
thing that has not had a good name attached to it? I do not speak now of such
fatal poison as Socinianism. or the like; but take Romanism, or the Greek
church, or even sects known to be heretical) and yet by the malice of the enemy
and the subtlety with which he has concealed his work some children of God have
been entangled. It is too plain therefore that, whatever good men may do here
or there, the only real inquiry is as to the will of the Lord. It is not a
question of making others walk in your light, but you must wt walk in their
darkness. This is the great point, not occupying ourselves with others,
prescribing what they must do, bat feeling my own sin, as well as the common
sin, yet by grace resolved at all costs to be where I can honour and obey the
Lord. Is not this a true plain imperative duty, an undeniable principle of
scripture, that commends itself to your conscience? It may be that you do not
act accordingly; but you cannot deny that it is a right thing and what you
ought to do.
But you are tied and have difficulties. Perhaps you have
a family and friends you cannot bear to grieve; perhaps you have hopes for your
children if not for yourself. Can a heart purified by faith thus set aside the
Lord's word? Do you think He does not know your wants and does not feel for
your family ? You know the Lord loves yourself: cannot you trust Him for a bit
of bread I You, who are trusting Him for eternal life and for heaven, cannot
you trust Him to take care of you in the face of these trials and obstacles of
every day? Perhaps you are too comfortable, too anxious about what is
respectable for yourself and your children. Let the Lord deal with you; I am
sure He will not harm you, but only do what is most loving and tender towards
you and yours. Impossible for any heart to be beyond the Lord's love and wisdom
and generous considerate care. If you really believe in Him, why not cleave to
His word without compact or condition, and come forth at His bidding? You do
not know what the next steps may be. It is enough that you know you are doing
contrary to the word of God now. In vain we talk of loving, if we are not
prepared to follow His word. Do you say you do not know what next to do I The
Lord does not ask you: it is not His way to show all at once. Act on what you
see from the word, and trust the Lord for what will follow; He is worthy of
your confidence, and will give you more when you have taken the first step. But
leave for ever that which is condemned in God's word. "Remember Lot's wife,"
and look not back, but go forth at His word wherever it points, and you will
find that "whosoever hath, to him shall be given." And as regards the way, to
the Lord rough or smooth is alike, deep or shallow, great or small; it may make
a great difference to you, but the greatest difficulties only become the means
of proving what the God is that we have found.
But there is more in 2
Tim. ii. Not only are you to separate, or purge yourself, from these vessels of
dishonour, but the word is, "Flee also youthful lusts; but follow
righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the, Lord out of a
pure heart." Thus there is no excuse for isolation. Turn your back upon what
you know is opposed to scripture. Have I to demonstrate to any Christian that
what is unscriptural is unholy? Have I to urge that "to him that knoweth to do
good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin?" If then you abandon what has no
warrant from scripture, but on the contrary is condemned by it, hear this word
of God: "Follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace." Follow them, not
solitarily, but " with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart." What
consolation, even if there were but two or three! Are you afraid because there
are only two or three? God may act on hundreds or thousands: this is a matter
for Him. You are to follow the Lord's path through His word, with chastened
spirit yet not sadly, but full of joy and thankfulness, if you find ever so few
who call upon the Lord out of a pure heart. In other words, faith has a divine
warrant to expect companions in its path, though it lie now through the ruin of
the Christian profession. As it is imperative to turn away from all known evil,
and there can be no -valid excuse for refusing God's call, so there is enjoined
companionship in following after righteousness, faith, charity, and peace, with
such as call upon the Lord out of a pure heart. May no hindrances nor dangers
alarm, but knowing that it is the Lord who has thus graciously thought of us,
may you and I and every one that loves that blessed name have unbroken
confidence in Him! He addresses Himself to hearts grieved in the midst of
dishonour to His grace and truth, and He has taken care to mark most distinctly
the path not of separation only but of association - the path of departure from
evil and of pursuing what is good.
How clearly the great moral
principles of God remain in spite of disorder. How the operations of His grace
survive all ruin! Thus the principle of the assembly of God abides in, it may
be, only two or three gathered to the name of the Lord. Thousands of
Christians, in a national system or in a dissenting sect, could not redeem
their fundamental error; members of Christ may be in them, but the principle of
God's assembly is abandoned in their very constitution. Let "two or three" come
out at the word of the Lord, making His name their centre, and owning the
Spirit of God as in and with them to guide them according to scripture; these,
and these only, are carrying out His mind in the real intelligence of the Holy
Ghost. It is no question of numbers, but of being gathered together, few or
many, unto the name of the Lord.
All here know what the House of
Commons is. A hundred members of that House might belong to the United Service
Club or the Athenaeum or anything else you please. These hundred members might
discuss the measures actually before the House in their club; but this could
never make the club to be the House; whereas in their true position with the
Speaker in the midst a much less number would constitute a House. It is exactly
the same principle What constitutes Gods assembly I "Two or three " gathered
unto the Lord's name. He has been pleased to bring it down to the point
described, with the fullest possible stamp of His approval and
authority.
On the other hand suppose ten thousand Christians meeting
simply as Christians - is that enough? I can conceive an assembly of
professing, yea, real Christians; and yet there would be no more reason to call
them God's assembly than to consider any number of members at their club the
House of Commons. It is not the fact of being Christians that constitutes God's
assembly, but their being gathered unto the name of the Lord. The practical
point for us is whether we are gathered to the name of Christians merely, or to
the name of Christ. If the former, you must accept of any evil thing into which
the enemy succeeds in dragging Christians. For if the man be a Christian, I
must receive him, spite of evil he is doing or sanctioning. But no! the
question is, Does he call upon the Lord out of a pure heart? The exclusion of
this word of God has widely overrun Christendom to the incalculable injury of
souls, and never more than now, when men practically put Christians in lieu of
Christ, the consequence of which is confusion and every evil work.
Whereas if the Lord have His place and be the centre to which I come, I have
then in His name a ground and rallying point to which I can claim, with the
most entire humility, every saint in the world - yea, I could not and ought not
to rest in my spirit as long as one that belongs to Him is outside. What I even
those under discipline, or avoided for grave causes? Yes, every one; not of
course to receive them with known evil upon them, but yet to desire themselves,
what is contrary to Christ being judged and removed.
The Lord make us
steadfast and give us to feel that the lowliest spirit becomes us I How can we
boast of ceasing to do evil we ourselves have done? May we look to Him
increasingly! He who has brought us out has compelled us to prove by our own
difficulties the true state of the church; but He has turned to profit our very
mistakes, though in a humbling way. He has used the storm, as it were, to purge
the hazy air, and displayed more clearly than ever the central place of His own
name for our gathering together no less than our salvation.
Thus we
may leave all fears and anxieties. If the Lord be our helper, why fear ? What
will man do ? Then, as for charges of sectarianism or presumption or disorder,
it were easy indeed to show that those axe really guilty who are quick to raise
and scatter them We know that scripture condemns every church association that
is not based on and governed by the name of Christ. It is not a mere question
of wrongs here or there ; but are they Christians gathered to the name of
Christ? Neither is it a question of the amount of evil? for what did not slip
in at Corinth through ignorance and unwatchfulness? The refusal to judge known
evil is no doubt fatal. But supposing the absence of everything gross, the true
question is, Are we where the Lord would have us be? Then happy are we, if but
"two or three" thus: were we ten millions anywhere else, all must be wrong,
because Christ is not the acknowledged and exclusive centre ecclesiastically.
He who is the only adequate and rightful object for all the saints on earth
deigns to be the centre of but "two or three," as He says, that are "gathered
together unto his name."