Because Ye Belong to Christ

Preface

“Because Ye Belong To Christ”

Or the Mutual Responsibilities of Believers.

Glasgow:

Pickering & Inglis, Printers And Publishers.

London: S. Bagster & Sons, Limited, 15 Paternoster Row, E.C. New York: Gospel Publishing House, 24 West 22nd Street.

Preface

The addresses of which the following pages are for the most part revised notes, having been originally delivered at considerable intervals, the reader will find certain repetitions which otherwise might have been avoided.

But as these were with a view to the emphasizing of important points, they may prove rather helpful than otherwise to the ordinary reader.

Even since the completion of them, events are more and more evidently converging toward a great crisis, and it behoves the believer to be trimming his lamp and girding his loins, in order to be ready for whatever may be in store for us. “The Coming of the Lord draweth nigh.”

J.R.C.

“For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in My Name, BECAUSE YE BELONG TO CHRIST, verily, I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.”—Mark 9:41.

Because Ye Belong To Christ

Turn with me to the Gospel according to Mark, chap. 9. Read from verse 33 to 42. The subject announced for this meeting is taken from verse 41—“Because ye belong to Christ.” And I would at the outset inquire, What is the force of this word? What is included in this “belonging to Christ?” I would like you to look at it from three points of view. The first is, that ail who are Christ’s belong to Him as the gift of the Father; the second is that they belong to Him as the purchase of His blood; and the third is that they belong to Him, as the members of His Body, through the operation of the Holy Spirit. So that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have all co-operated in bringing about this result that we belong to Christ.

Now, will you look at the seventeenth chapter of the Gospel by John, the second verse —“As Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given Him.” Then 6th verse— “I have manifested Thy Name unto the men which Thou gavest Me out of the world; Thine they were, and Thou gavest them Me.” 9th verse—“I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them which Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine.” 11th verse, middle of the verse—“Holy Father, keep through Thine own Name those whom Thou hast given Me.” 24th verse— “Father, I will that they also whom Thou hast given Me be with Me where I am.” Seven times in this chapter the Lord’s people are called “those whom the Father has given Him.”

Now look at the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John. Verse 37—“All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me; and him that cometh unto Me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from Heaven not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Here, again, we have the same aspect of the truth. All those who came to Christ, those who saw the Son, and believed on Him, are those whom the Father has given to Him. And note that remarkable word—“Him that cometh to Me, I will in no wise cast out.” It is usually brought before an unsaved person or an anxious soul, to encourage them to trust Christ; and it is blessed to use it so, but I think there is more than that in it here. Mark the force of the previous word—“All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me.” That is His confidence, His assurance. It seemed as if He was to be totally rejected; it seemed as if no one was going to come to Him, but His confidence is this—“All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me;” and whenever He saw a poor sinner coming to Him, believing on Him, it mattered not whether they were high or low; whether it was Nicodemus coming by night, or the poor, wretched sinner that came behind His feet, washing them with her tears, He saw in each of these one that the Father had given Him; and when they came to Him He would in no wise cast them out; or rather, He would “in no wise surrender” or “give up.” He could not give up, He could not surrender, He could not cast out, one that His own Father had given Him, given Him from eternity, given Him from before the foundation of the world, given Him in the bond of the Eternal Covenant. How could He cast them out? “Nay,” He says, “for I came down from Heaven not to do My own will, but the will of My Father.”

He came, not to make an election for Himself, but to receive the election of His Father. He came not to pick and choose for Himself, but to receive every one that the Father gave Him.

“Him that cometh unto Me, I will in no wise cast out,” is a blessed verse to give to a convicted sinner, but it is also a blessed verse for one that has come and trusted, for it tells that He will never give you up. Why? If He failed to bring those who have believed on Him to His eternal glory, He would fail to accomplish the Father’s will. “This is the Father’s will which hath sent Me, that of all which He has given Me I should lose nothing (not even a hair of their head), but should raise it up again at the last day.” But, in order to accomplish this, it behoved Him to go down to the very depths of the waves and billows of the wrath of God, and bear the curse on Calvary. “Having loved His own, who were in the world, He loved them to the end.” He loved them till He could say, “It is finished;” and He will love them until He has them in His own image, made glorious for ever, and has presented them to the Father as the fruit of His own obedience unto death.

Now I want to impress upon you this thought, that the Lord Jesus Christ ever looked upon each one who came to Him, and believed in Him, and ever does look upon such, and looks upon every one here this afternoon who has believed on Him, as one “whom the Father has given Him.”

Now, I ask, How do we value a gift? We value a gift just according to the love we bear to the giver. We will not set much value on a gift from a person we do not care for. But if it is some one that I love very much that has given me a gift, it may be a very little thing, a mere trifle, but I will set a very high value upon it. I have one or two little things in a drawer at home, that were given to me on certain occasions by my little children—little things that they had worked at and tried hard to make, keeping it a secret while they were doing it, and then, when the time came, they gave it to me. Well, they are not worth a farthing, but I value them according to the love I bear to the little ones that gave them to me, and that is the measure by which we value a gift. Now, how will the Lord Jesus Christ value those whom the Father has given Him— the Father in whose bosom He dwelt from eternity—the Father whose love He knew? Why, when He wants to convey the thought of how the Father loves me, loves you, He says, “He loves you as He loves Me.” The blessed Lord Jesus Christ could say nothing more than that. O, the Father’s love to Him! It was infinite love, and He knew it; and according to that love of the Father to Him, and that love that He bore to the Father, and which He proved by obedience unto death— according to that love He values “those whom the Father has given Him.” Now that is the first sense in which we belong to Christ. We belong to Him as the gift of the Father.

Let us now look at the second sense. Turn to Matthew, chapter 13, 45th verse— “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchantman seeking goodly pearls, who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.”

Now, will you turn to the first epistle of Peter, chapter 1, 18th verse—“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation, received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious Blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” “Ye are not your own; ye are bought with a price” (1 Cor. 6:19, 20).

When a thing is given to us we value it according to the love we bear to the person that gave it; but, when we buy a thing, we value it according to the price we pay for it. If I paid a very big price for it, then I set a very high value on it. What value does our Lord set upon those He has bought? He has bought us with the price of His own most precious Blood. The Church is the pearl that He sold all that He had to buy. He parted with everything, parted with His glory, parted with His kingdom and with His royal claims for the time being; laid down His life on Calvary’s Cross; He was cut off, and He had nothing! Who was so poor as He—Who, though He was rich, yet for our sakes became poor? He sold all that He had, that He might buy us—the pearl. Then, what a value does He set upon those that He has purchased with His own Blood—those that were the Father’s gift to Him! But before He could secure them for Himself, eternally to lavish all the treasures of His love upon them, He must first cancel their debt, clear them of guilt, set them down blood-washed and sanctified in the presence of God. He had to “bear their sins in His own body on the tree;” and yet such is the love He bare to us that He paid down His own life’s blood on the Cross of Calvary, in order to win us and purify us unto Himself. O, what will He not give? “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

Who has loved us to the laying down of his life? Do you know any friend that you could say of him—” I know that, if I were in trouble, he would spend his last penny for me?” I don’t think you know anybody you could say that about. Do you know of any one of whom you could say—“I know that, if it was to do me good, he would lay down his life for me?” That friend is the Lord Jesus Christ. “He loved me, He gave Himself for me,” said the Apostle Paul; and it is your privilege, and it is my privilege, thus to know that the Lord Jesus has loved us personally—not in the slump, but personally and individually; that He does at this moment love you and me with the same love that was burning in His heart when He went for us to the dark Cross of Calvary. That is the eternal, unchangeable love of Christ.

Now, let us look at another aspect of it. Turn to the first epistle to the Corinthians, chap, 12, from the 11th verse—“But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will.” Now, I want you to notice that this passage concerns the operation of the Holy Spirit. We have been looking at the gift of the Father, and at the purchase price paid by the Son, and now we look at the operation of the Holy Spirit.

12th verse—“For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptised into one body; whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.”

27th verse—“Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.”

Now, look at chapter6:of this same epistle, at the 15th verse — “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?”

19th verse—“What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price.” Now, I don’t intend to multiply passages; they are very numerous. These teach us that everyone who has believed, everyone whom the Father hath given Him, everyone included in that covenant, sealed by His own precious blood, is constituted by the operation of the Holy Spirit a member of the Body of Christ. The body would be incomplete without the smallest member. Cut off my little finger; it is an incomplete body. The Body of Christ is to be eternally complete. There will not be one member lacking, and this is the operation of the Holy Spirit. It is the mighty power of God that links the believer in a vital union with the Head—Christ Jesus—so that he continually regards His people as Himself. As we read in Ephesians 5, “No man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it even as the Lord the Church.” So that He looks upon the members of His Body just as I look upon the members of my body, and I nourish them, and I care for them, and defend them, and clothe them, and keep them warm. Why? Just because they are a part of myself; and don’t you see what folly it would be for you to say that you love, and honour, and esteem my head, and yet, forsooth, you think nothing of tramping upon my toe, as if that were not a part of myself. Don’t you see how absurd it is? We recognise that the head and the members are one, and, what is more, the head feels everything that is done to every member. In fact, it is one of the discoveries of modern science that all sensation is located in the head. Every touch is communicated from the farthest extremity to the head, it is the head that feels everything, and if one member of the body is paralysed, so that it does not feel, what is the cause of that? It is generally traceable to some defect in the brain. Everything we feel is felt by the head. All the care that is bestowed upon the body is devised by the head. When the hand goes quickly to the help of any other part of the body which is hurt, it is directed to go by the head, and if the communication between the head and the arm is not in proper working order, then the arm is a paralysed arm, and it does not obey the will of the head. Now, all this is just a spiritual allegory, an illustration divinely constructed to show us the intimate relationship between every believer and the Christ that is at God’s right hand. Now, this is a great fact, and another truth flows out of that which is very often forgotten. You will get it in Ephes. 4:25. Now, mark, it is not, “Let every man speak truth with his neighbour, because it is a sin to tell a lie.” That is true, but not what is here. It is, “Let every man speak truth with his neighbour, for what is the good of deceiving one who is a member of the same body.” What is the use of my right hand deceiving my left? What an absurd thing! Why, dear friends, if you and I looked upon one another who are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ as “members one of another,” then we would just feel one for another as one member of my body feels for another, and one member of my body will be very slow to injure another; indeed, not if I can prevent it. Ah! have we not practically denied this truth, that by being members of Christ we are members one of another? We dare not speak an evil word of a child of God; we dare not hurt a child of God; we dare only seek their blessing; we dare only seek to do them good, if we realise the truth that is here, that being members of Christ we are members one of another. And, dear friends, how plain it is that this pertains to no sect. Sects—what are they? Man sees many bodies. God sees only one. Man has them divided up into sections. Christ knows only one. The Father knows only one. The Holy Ghost knows only one. Members of Christ, and members one of another. “That they all may be one, that the world might believe that Thou hast sent Me,” was His prayer, and if all God’s saints were one, one in the mighty love of God, one in recognition of this truth, that we are one with Christ, joint-heirs with Christ, sharers of His sufferings here, and sharers of His glory to come, O what a change it would make in the aspect of the Church as presented to the world. There is not one unconverted professor in that body—not one— not one who has not been born again and washed in the precious blood of Christ; but every one—every one of those members that were written in God’s book from eternity, every one is in that body—every one are members one of another. Dear friends, our business is every hour of the day, as we come in contact with God’s children, to give the lie to sectarianism, and make it felt by love that we are one in Christ—a love that dare not speak evil, that dare not do harm to one that belongs to Christ, a love that will respect, and cherish, and seek to bless them because they belong to Christ.

Let us turn again to Mark 9:33-42, the passage we have read. There are two things prominent in the character of the Lord Jesus, viz., love and lowliness. On the only occasion on which He describes His own heart He says—“I am meek and lowly in heart.” One of the words that the Lord Jesus frequently repeated was—“He that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” The one thing that is common to mankind is pride. It is the very nature of the flesh. Pride—personal pride, party pride, purse pride. Antichrist is the man that “exalteth himself above all that is called God.” He will be just the full development of the old corrupt Adam nature. What is the Lord Jesus Christ? The One that “humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross.” Now, which are you and I the likest? Do you and I, in our daily life and character, most resemble Christ or antichrist? Are we most concerned about exalting self or abasing self? The true path to exaltation is self-abasement.

What were those disciples disputing about by the way? There is a word in the book of Proverbs that we are apt to forget: “Only by pride cometh contention.” There never yet was dissension amongst saints that the root of it was not pride. There is pride lurking in some corner, if you can only find it out. The Lord Jesus knew all about it, and how it was withering their spiritual life; and so, when they came into the house, He asked, “What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?” He always put questions that just brought out the very thing that was needed. “But they held their peace,” or held down their heads. Perhaps they got red up to the ears. Oh, they were ashamed that the Master—the lowly Master—should know that they had been degrading themselves by disputing about who should be the greatest.

Has the Lord Jesus Christ ever seen us, perhaps not openly, but yet secretly and practically striving who shall be the greatest. May the Lord help us to be true to ourselves about these things. “And He called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first the same shall be last of all and servant of all. And He took a child, and set him in the midst of them; and when He had taken him in His arms, He said unto them, Whosoever shall receive one of such children in My Name, receiveth Me; and whosoever shall receive Me, receiveth not Me, but Him that sent Me.”

Now, here is a verse upon “receiving.” Some of us have heard a good deal in our day about “receiving.” Here is a verse from the lips of the Lord Jesus Christ upon it. How did He receive that little child? He called the little child to Him, and set him in the midst—an object lesson for the twelve disciples. But He did not stop there; He did not begin to point the lesson until He had taken the little child up in His arms. Oh, look at that little child in the arms of the Lord Jesus, and his head upon His breast. That is “receiving.” Is it, that on a certain day, at a certain hour on the clock, a certain person is recognised as received into a certain assembly? Well, I say nothing against that; I leave that aside, but I say, all that may be done, and yet there may have been no Scriptural reception. What the Lord Jesus Christ loves is a heart reception of one whom the Father gave Him; one that is a member of His Body, one for whom He bled and died—reception to the heart’s affections, because they belong to Christ.

That is reception. Have we received God’s saints that way? Do we receive one another that way—not only on first entering a local assembly, but daily, hourly, as we have opportunity, to meet and to greet a child of God wherever he is, simply because he is a child of God, and because he does belong to Christ? O that God would give us to see that He cares for nothing but the whole heart’s affections. He wants to see His own love flowing out from us first to one another, and then in compassion to a guilty world.

I would like to stay and linger, looking at that picture of the little child in the arms of the Lord Jesus, and hear Him saying— “There is the way to receive the little ones that believe in Me.” Receive them to your hearts. Are there not believers received into meetings, and, perhaps, a year after you don’t know their faces! You have never once thought of inquiring about them, perhaps; took no interest in them whatever; just like a man received into a trades’ society—“Oh, the secretary will look after them.” “The elder brethren will look after them; what is that to me?” But “receiving” is “receive ye one another.” It is a practical thing. It is the receiving to the heart because they belong to Christ, and, in doing so, we are receiving Christ. He that receives one such little one— one of the feeblest, one of the most ignorant— He that receives one such little one that believes in Him, because he belongs to Christ, receives Christ.

It may be we begin by loving one another because we belong to Christ; but there is a tendency in our nature to degenerate, and by-and-by we love one another, not simply because we belong to Christ, but because we belong to the meeting. I know how much easier it is to love those that are of one mind with myself than to love those who differ from me. But God loves those that differ from us just the same as those who are amongst us. It is not that we are called to countenance evil. Nay, love will be faithful; love will speak the truth; love will seek the blessing of its object j love will do that which is right and pleasing to God. But Divine love will never do anything that will injure one that belongs to Christ.

But let us pass on. Verse 38—“And John answered Him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils [demons] in Thy Name, and he followeth not us; and we forbade him, because he followeth not us.”

Now notice, John did not merely say, “We saw one casting out demons,” but “we saw one casting out demons in Thy Name.” This was a person who knew the power of the Name of Jesus. He might have known little else, but he knew the power of the Name of Jesus, and he was casting out demons in that Name. Well, there may be men, ignorant and in many respects foolish men, and yet they may know the power of the Lord Jesus to save their own souls, and they know His power and willingness to save others.

I was going along Argyle Street, in Glasgow, one Sunday lately, and there was a crowd at the corner of one of the streets, and in that crowd was a working man—a man that could not put many words together, and there was no attempt at oratory, but he was telling them that the Lord had saved him; that he had not the sore head he had in the morning when he used to frequent the whisky shops. He said—” I am now a happy man, and the Lord Jesus Christ is both able and willing to do the same for you.” It was a simple testimony, but that man knew the power of the Name of Jesus, and he was making it known to others.

What follows? “We forbade him, because he followeth not us.”

Now, you notice in this passage there are two kinds of pride. The previous kind was personal pride—“Who should be greatest;” this is party pride—“He followeth not us.” “He does not belong to our party.” What does the Lord Jesus say? He did not say, “Go you after him;” nor did He tell them, “Go and leave Me and join his company.” No, but He said, “Forbid him not.” Why? “For there is no man that shall do a miracle in My Name that can lightly speak evil of Me.” You see the Lord Jesus reduces it to a personal matter. Is he a man that loves Me? Is he a man that would speak evil of Me? It is personal. It is not whether he follows with us, but, Does he love Me? Would he speak evil of Me?

Perhaps the Lord may give him more light by-and-by, but meantime do not hinder him. And let us take care that we do not speak evil or speak disparagingly of those who are, it may be, casting out demons in the Name of the Lord Jesus, though they don’t see what we see and don’t follow with us.

God forbid that I should fall in with the ways of some, which, however well meant, are bringing the glorious Gospel into disrepute, and this in connection with what is supposed to be the Lord’s work in these days. God forbid that I should have fellowship with such practices as young girls with their collection boxes in front of them begging from the world for collections for the work of the Gospel. I blush to think of such things being done in the Name of the Lord Jesus. But shall I speak evil of them? No; those of the so-called “Salvation Army” have been the means of casting out many a demon. I may not speak evil of them. I respect their love to Christ and their love for souls, and God has blessed them. But it is one thing to follow with such, and it is quite another thing, whilst respecting them for the good that is in them, to seek rather to help them into “the ways that be in Christ.”

The Lord Jesus does not need the coppers of unconverted people. Let us be clear about that. We need not go to the enemies of God for collections to carry on His work. But there are many who do not see that, and who think they are doing a good thing, and are denying themselves to do it. Well, do not let us speak evil of such, but pray for them that God would lead them into the light, and bless them and make them a blessing.

But let us hurry on. 40th verse—“For he that is not against us is on our part. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in My Name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.”

Only a cup of water! Why not a loaf of bread? Oh, well, a loaf of bread might cost fourpence; a cup of water does not cost anything. He is looking on the heart; He is looking on the love of that heart. He sees the readiness with which that heart went for the cup and drew the water, and brought it to the person; and He sees there is a special alacrity about the service, because it was done for one that belonged to Christ. It is that which gives value to our service one to another, when we do it for those who belong to Christ, because they are His, and it is this that rejoices the heart of the Lord. Why, He marks it down for a prize at the crowning day! He marks it down for a high certificate in that day of recompense to His people for their service to Him. A cup of water given to one because he belongs to Christ shall not be forgotten.

God would have us do all that we do for one another on that ground, and to love one another for no other reason than that we belong to Christ. Why, the hypocrites love those that love them. Tories love Tories; Radicals love Radicals. There is nothing in that. It is an easy matter to love one who is of the same mind as themselves; but when some dispute arises, such love quickly turns to vinegar. It is not Divine love. Divine love is like the Apostle Paul’s—“I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.” That is the love we are called to have one to another.

Now, in conclusion, in the next verse— “And whosoever shall offend [or cause to stumble] one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were cast about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” What does that mean? The Lord looks with tenderest compassion and care upon those that believe in Him. His desire is that they might go along joyfully— happily in His ways and in the light of His countenance, receiving His blessing. But you and I, by our careless walk, by our hard and unloving ways, by our bitter words, by our misrepresentation of the truth, by our want of obedience to His new Commandment—you and I may be stumbling little ones that believe on Him. The Lord Jesus says—“I would rather you were at the bottom of the sea than that you should live to be a stumbling-block to a little one that believes in Me.”

Beloved friends, have our ways stumbled Christ’s little ones? Has our want of love one to another, our personal pride, our party pride, stumbled Christ’s little ones? Has our love of pleasure, and our love of being uppermost, stumbled Christ’s little ones?

Ah, has not many a one, when they came in amongst God’s people, expected to find it a very hot-house of love; but they have been chilled and repelled, and, perhaps, the first thing they got was a lot of evil stories poured into their ears. Have not the little ones been stumbled?

Perhaps there are some of us here to-day of whom the Lord might truly say—“I would rather you had been at the bottom of the sea ten years ago than that you should have lived to stumble My little ones.” Not that one who has been given by the Father, and quickened by the Holy Spirit, and washed in the Blood of Christ, could be lost; but, alas, alas! they might lose, and be eternally losers of, recompense and honour at the Judgment Seat of Christ. The reward that He would have delighted to bestow they have lost, for they were stumbling-blocks to the little ones.

Beloved friends, let us take heed how we walk. Let us seek to love one another for Christ’s sake. Let us get rid of personal ambition. Let us get rid of party pride and strife. Let us seek to know nothing among men but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and then we will know the blessing of the Lord upon us, and there will be power in the testimony and in the Gospel such as we have not seen.

The Church of God: Its Fellowship and Government

“Before touching upon the subject of “The Government and Fellowship of the Church or Churches,” allow me to refer to another subject. It seems to me we have had very abundantly brought before us that aspect of the Church which is synonymous with “the Body of Christ.” The term “Body of Christ” is doubtless a figure, and wherever it is used the thought of vital union with the Head and with the fellow-members is prominent. The term “Church” describes the same thing, but without a figure. As you have again and again heard, the original word for “church “is “ecclesia,” and signifies “the called out,” and properly, also, in a derived sense, “the called together.” All believers have been called by God out of death into life, out of darkness into light, out from the power of Satan into the Kingdom of the Son of His love, out from the world and into the fellowship of the Son of God.

As these blessings are the common heritage of all believers, all are in that sense of the Church as well as of the Body of Christ.

I would refer you to one passage—Acts 20:28—in proof of this: “Feed the Church of God, which Hs hath purchased with His own blood.” In this aspect the Church embraces all in this dispensation who are purchased by “His own blood.”1 I fail to see certain distinctions that have been drawn between “the Church,” “the Church of God,” “the Churches of Christ,” and so on.

It seems to me, as a simple reader of the Scriptures, that wherever the term “of God” is added to the word “Church,” there is a very definite and obvious reason for it. For instance, in the passage already referred to responsibility is laid upon those whom the Holy Spirit had fitted for the work, to feed the Church of God—the Church, that is, “of God” as to its very origin, “of God” as the object of His love, “of God” as the purchase of the blood of His own dear Son. How immensely the addition of the words “of God” adds to the importance of the work, and to the responsibility to do it well!

Take another instance—1 Cor. 15:9—“I am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God.” Why not, as in Phil. 3:6, when referring to the same facts, “persecuting the Church”? In the former he is showing the heinousness of his sin, and therefore emphasises the thought that it was that which was of God which he persecuted, which God loved and valued, even as the precious ransom-price at which He bought it. In the latter passage it is not the heinousness of his crime that he is exposing, but the sincerity and blindness of his zeal. No need in that sense to emphasise the thought of its being “of God.” And again, 1 Cor. 11:22: “What! have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the Church of God? “As much as to say, “Will you dare, by your foolish behaviour, to despise that which is of God, God’s dwelling-place, God’s blood-bought and Spirit-sealed temple?”

It appears plain to me that the reason why the words “of God” are added in each of these cases is not to denote some different thing from what would be denoted by the term “Church,” but to emphasise the particular thought which at each point is prominently before the mind of the writer.

I would now turn to another aspect of the Church, which you will find in 3rd John. The pre-eminence which Diotrephes loved and acquired evidently involved a tremendous influence over the consciences of the believers, by means of which he was able to carry with him, in his high-handed casting out of the children of God, probably a very large proportion of the Church. And it is evident that he was one who would tolerate no difference of judgment whatever. If any dared to receive the brethren whom he would not receive, he forbade them, and if they would not bow to his decision, he cast them also out of the Church. So he narrowed down the circle of fellowship until he carried everything his own way!

If, as many of us have long believed, the Second Epistles bear upon the “last days,” surely the only Third Epistle brings us to the very end, and shows what we may expect to see at the final stage of the Church’s history upon earth. Very special is its voice to us at the present time. Never was there a time when more high-handed action was taken or higher pretensions advanced among genuine children of God. In this passage “the Church “is recognised by the apostle at the same time that he acknowledges a number of beloved saints as being cast out of it. They could not be both in the Church and out of it at the same time. Here we have one distinct and definite instance, showing that the Church is not only spoken of in the wider sense of Acts 20:28—the Church of God as equivalent to the Body of Christ—but that it is also spoken of in a local sense, a gathered company of saints, expressive of the great divine ideal—having mutual relationship and responsibility as such which they are bound in the Lord to own and carry out. It was, therefore, quite a possible thing for those who were “members of the Body of Christ” and of “the Church of God “purchased by the blood of Jesus to be outside of the local assembly.

It is in this aspect of the Church, wherein human responsibility comes in, that all our difficulties arise.

I would submit that what entitles any man to a place in the assembly locally, is the fact that he is of the Church purchased by the blood of Christ. I repeat it, that that which gives any man, in the first instance—“prima facie,” as the lawyers say—a title to be in the local assembly gathered unto the Lord’s Name, is the prior fact that he was a member of the Body of Christ, and of that blood-bought Church in which God is to be glorified throughout the eternal ages (see Eph. 3:21).

But some will ask, “Where is this Church?”

Dear friends, we must face the great and sorrowful fact that the Church upon earth, as a corporate thing in testimony here for God, has utterly failed—utterly failed in testimony corporately, not individually—for in the darkest ages Christ had His brightest lights—but corporately.

God in judgment has permitted it to be corrupted, broken up, divided, and scattered like the temple of old, of which not one stone was left upon another.

Out of all this terrible confusion God has been leading individual souls in these last days—here and there a few, at first tens, then hundreds, now thousands. Each one in the teaching and leading of His Spirit through the Word discovering the failure and ruin of the Church as a corporate witness for God, and owning his responsibility to the Lord, has been seeking his way back to the old foundation, to the original apostolic doctrine and pattern. They have sought to go where they could carry out His Word, having no appeal but the Scriptures, and owning no authority but that of the Lord Jesus Christ. Such is the position God is leading them into.

One is led to it through seeing how sectarianism divides the children of God for whom Christ died that He might gather them into one (John 11:52). Another is exercised in conscience about the mixing together of believers and unbelievers in what professes to be God’s assembly.

But, however led, the result is that they find themselves together seeking in much weakness and ignorance, and yet with some measure of true-heartedness, to carry out what they have learned in the Word.

But all around is confusion. The world has become religious, and the children of God have become worldly, and are hand-in-glove with the world. Errors have been imbibed even by true Christians, from human traditions as well as doctrines of demons and Satanic lies, such as “annihilation” and “the larger hope.” Amidst it all, is there anything to guide us in the Scriptures?

Let us turn to 2nd Timothy 2:19. Here is a seal with two sides—a Godward side and a manward. The Godward side is, “The Lord knoweth them that are His.” In Acts 2 to 5 there was little difficulty in knowing who were His. “Of the rest durst no man join himself unto them.” In days of persecution there is little difficulty—the chaff is driven away. In apostolic days, the local Church at Jerusalem or Corinth embraced the very same circle as the membership of the Body of Christ (I do not, of course, refer here to one put away by the Word of God for special sin), and it ought to be so still; but such is the havoc Satan has wrought in the corporate thing, that now we cannot tell who are and who are not the Lord’s, as once it could be known. Hence the word for these last days: “The Lord knoweth them that are His.” That is God’s side of the seal. What is ours?

“Let every one that nameth the Name of Christ (or the Lord) depart from iniquity (or unrighteousness).” This is the call of God to us; and in departing from what God has shown us to be unrighteousness, we shall find that we are not alone. We shall find that others whom God has been leading step by step, here a little and there a little, light dawning gradually upon their understandings, are casting in their lot with us. One is attracted by the truth, another by the separateness from the world and the coming together of believers only, another by the scriptural order and simplicity of the Spirit’s leading in ministry and worship, and so on.

But the knowledge comes not all at once; and if you and I begin by demanding, as a condition of fellowship, the intelligent reception of truths that took us many years to learn, this is making our terms of fellowship, and not God’s, and building again the walls of sectarianism.

Many references have been made to the reception of Saul at Jerusalem. Sometimes too much has been made of it, and sometimes too little—we are creatures of extremes—but this much at least to me is evident, the thing they did not know, and which they wanted to know, was whether or not he was a genuine disciple. Satisfied as to that, the way into the fellowship of the brethren was open to him. They had no morning newspaper or telegraphic news to inform them daily of what was going on at Damascus. Barnabas knew the facts of which they were ignorant, and his testimony was enough.

But 2nd Timothy shows us that that would not be enough now. Many an eloquent preacher holds the non-eternity of punishment. Such should not be received; it is fundamental error.

Others hold grievous error as to inspiration of Scripture, atonement, regeneration, and other cardinal doctrines.

Others there are who can only be regarded as causers of division, who think little of sowing discord among brethren and breaking up churches into fragments, if so be they can carry things their own way.

Looking at all that surrounds us, it is clearly not enough now to know that one is a converted person. It is necessary to know that he is sound in the faith as well as godly in his individual walk; in short, it must be known to those who receive him that there is no evil chargeable against him upon the ground of which Scripture would warrant his exclusion. Granted that the person is known to be a Christian—“a disciple”— and that there is nothing against him on the ground of which Scripture would warrant his exclusion, then, in the name of the Lord, we must receive him. I know no other ground, and I never did hold anything else since I left the denominations myself.

I warn you, dear friends, against overstepping the Word of God. You may reason out a very fine theory, hanging it upon some single verse of Scripture, and get many to accept it who do not take the pains to prove it by all Scripture.

For instance, what a theory is spun out of 2 Timothy 2:25, 26! Certain assemblies that have accepted certain doctrines are “the Church of God.” All outside them is “the snare of the devil.” Every connection and association outside the so-called “Church of God” must be repented of, and separated from, as “snare of the devil,” before a believer, be he ever so godly, ever so ready to lay down his life for the Lord, and for what he knows of His will, can be accorded any measure of fellowship. Alas! may not those who hold such a theory, and ruthlessly force it upon others, be themselves, though they know it not, in Satan’s snare.

I confess I feel ashamed to lift up my head as I think of such doctrines being advanced, of the sorrow they are causing, and the stumbling-block that is thus cast in the way of many who would fain follow were they gently led onward into the ways of the Lord. The truth should be held in love, and love should be in the truth; but these have been divorced—what God has joined has been put asunder, and therefore the judgment of God is upon us.

I believe we ought to endeavour to have as much fellowship with every child of God as we can have without compromising the truth. One, as the Lord’s servant, may feel liberty to go where another could not. One might feel free where another would feel that his position for the time was a compromise. It is not our province to judge one another in such things, but to pray for one another, asking God that servants of His, who go where some of us could not go with a good conscience, may be used beyond even their own faith and expectation in leading children of God into light and love and liberty.2 I would now shortly touch upon the Church’s government. Read 1 Cor. 4:19-21: “But I will come unto you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the Kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye? Shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? “The apostles were empowered by the Lord Jesus Christ to enforce, if need be, obedience to that which was His revealed will. This power was entrusted to them, not in order to destruction, but for edification. I have heard an Irvingite—a member of what calls itself the Catholic Apostolic Church—say that they had apostles, and that “the signs of an apostle” in power and mighty deeds had been seen by him, even to the raising of the dead! I could only judge that the young man was labouring under a hallucination. I do not believe that any such power remains now. In implicit obedience to the Word of the Lord, we can put away from among ourselves those whom the Word of the Lord instructs us to put away, and we can and ought always to seek to be of one mind in so doing, that one may not be building up what others are breaking down, or vice versa.

But, I ask, if apostolic power is claimed, have we apostolic discernment? Have we apostolic patience? Have we apostolic grace? Are even Churches of Christ infallible? Are they not liable to make mistakes —fastening, perhaps, upon a troublesome brother the title “railer,” or “covetous,” as a pretext for getting decently rid of him? Are all other assemblies to be subject to such a judgment as that?

Differences do not, as a rule, arise as to a drunkard or a proved and admitted holder of non-eternity, but about dubious cases where evil feelings have been generated. Then, instead of patiently and in brokenness of heart seeking unto the Lord for oneness of mind and judgment, the cry is raised, as of old, by the woman who had not the mother’s heart, “Divide the child!” But the mother’s heart yearned over the object of her love. And we have to get this grace from the God of all grace even now, to yearn over the feeble, scattered sheep who are being fed with much that is not bread, and with scant measure of grace.

We need patience and love, as well as clearest, simplest truth ministered from and unto childlike hearts.

May God raise up among us pastors and teachers after His own heart—men who shall be felt to be helpers and comforters every time they open their lips.

Brethren, have you cried to God for such? Rarely, if ever, have I heard this prayer.

Satan is busy. When walking along the streets of London I have seen men selling penny puzzles. I never yet found out one of these puzzles until some one who knew the secret showed it to me. It may seem a trivial illustration; but I tell you Satanic ingenuity is at work to put into the hands of every company of believers a question to engender strife, a difficulty they cannot unravel, a Satanic puzzle which they cannot unlock; and so they puzzle and puzzle, and wrangle and fight, till, patience exhausted, the attempt is given up, the cry is raised, “Divide” and Satan has gained his end. Surely in such cases it is a call for both parties to humble themselves before God, and to seek, in patient waiting upon Him, “a right way,” so that oneness of mind may be attained, and, if not immediately, that there might at anyrate be patience with one another, mutual respect, and brotherly love.

But it is often otherwise. Brethren, would-be leaders, finding they have not power to convince others that their principles and practices are scriptural, and that they have as little power to enforce their judgment, resort to the only other method they can devise, namely, an open schism, and this not as a matter of shame, but a subject of boasting, asserting their claim to be acknowledged by all as “the Church of God in that place,” with the penalty attached, as of old by Diotrephes, that all, whether individuals or assemblies, who do not endorse this assumption shall no longer be regarded as “in or of the fellowship of the Church of God.”

Such divisions necessarily cause difficulty in assemblies far and near, often giving rise to roots of bitterness that bear like evil fruit.

In all such matters of dispute and difference of judgment, would it not be well, before the extreme of open division is contemplated, much less resorted to, to obtain counsel from wise and godly brethren, in whom all would have confidence, who not being immediately concerned, and therefore less liable to prejudice and party feeling than the contending parties, might bring light from the Scriptures to show where either or both have gone wrong, and so help to heal the breach?

O may God open the eyes of His children to the subtlety of Satan’s devices for the spoiling of the testimony of every feeble company that God has gathered in these last days around His Son.

1 It is asserted that the word here rendered “purchased” ought to be “acquired.” Possibly this may be a better rendering, but it in no way affects the point we contend for, that all acquired by the blood are in the Church of God in this aspect of it.

2 Eldad and Medad prophesied in the camp from which. Moses had gone forth. Did Moses forbid or denounce them? Read his answer in Numbers 11:29.

The Basis of Reception and Fellowship

The principles which govern a dispensation may be departed from, or even reversed, by divine revelation. For example, the God-appointed separation between Jew and Gentile is abolished; the “middle wall of partition “is broken down in this age. The essential difference between the old covenant and the new—between the dispensation of law and that of grace—necessitated this and other equally radical changes in the divine legislation.

But within the limits of one dispensation, whilst there may be advance or development in divine legislation, or, more properly, adaptation of the initial principles to varying conditions and circumstances, essential change of principle or retrograde legislation there cannot be.

For example, in Exodus 12:47, it is written concerning the Passover, “All the congregation of Israel shall keep it”; and the month Abib is specified as that in which it was to be kept (Exodus 12:3; compare 13:4).

In Numbers 9 the first month of the second year had arrived, and the children of Israel were commanded to keep the Passover at the appointed season. But a circumstance had occurred which presented a difficulty. Certain persons were defiled by the dead body of a man. Such, according to Numbers 5:2, were to be temporarily placed outside the camp, and were thus deprived of the privileges of the congregation of Jehovah.

In the difficulty, God was sought unto; and the new condition that had arisen became the occasion of a fresh divine legislation, which is properly the adaptation of the original appointment to the new and altered circumstances.

In the case of defilement or absence on a journey preventing the observance of the Passover in the appointed season, it was to be observed in the second month.

Most interesting and instructive is the action of Hezekiah in 2 Chron. 30, where the king, his princes, and all the congregation took counsel to keep the Passover in the second month.

The whole congregation took the place of the defiled. It was undoubtedly done in the intelligence of faith, the result in them of the operation of the grace of God.

But, nevertheless, this was exceptional; it was an adaptation to special conditions; and the broad ground was not departed from, that the Passover was for all Israel. Therefore, the proclaimation was sent “throughout all Israel, from Beersheba even unto Dan, that they should come to keep the Passover unto Jehovah God of Israel at Jerusalem.”

No subsequent conditions or legislation could alter the original principle that every Israelite had a prima facie3 right and responsibility to keep the Passover.

That there is an analogy between this Old Testament teaching and the teaching of the New Testament can hardly be disputed. In 1 Cor. 11 the Lord’s own express command is recorded for the Church; and in chapter 1:2 it is made binding upon “all that in everyplace call upon the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” It is therefore indisputably the intention of the Lord that all His own—“the Church which He has purchased with His own blood”— should observe the Lord’s Supper. Although New Testament legislation does not specify time and place, it is nevertheless very plain to those who have no preconceived opinions or traditional theories to hinder, that the fitting occasion is “the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7); and that the place is where the disciples are gathered, whether many or few, unto and in the Name of the Lord. To this gathering and the observance of this ordinance every believer had the prima facie right, and it was their responsibility to be there.

This principle remains unaltered and unalterable until the Lord comes, notwithstanding that changes of circumstances and conditions have brought forth divine limitations that modify the original idea, as to its practical working out. For example, in 1 Cor. 5, the man who sinned was to be severed from the assembly. This was not in order to his destruction, but for his restoration, which probably did take place afterwards, if 2 Cor. 2:7, &c, may be taken as referring to the same person. Here was a divine limitation preventing such characters as are specified from partaking of the feast, even although they may have been genuine children of God.

The ordinary phrase indicating who are to be received, viz., “All believers sound in faith and godly in walk,” is hardly satisfactory.

As 1 Cor. 5 demands that fellowship in the feast be denied to persons guilty of evil practices, so equally do Gal. 5:9-12 and 2 Tim. 2:16-19 demand the same exclusion of those holding fundamental error of doctrine.

But this is not all. In Matt, 18:15-18, one is to be ultimately given the place of “a heathen man and a publican.” For what sin? None is specified. But the divinely appointed steps being taken, and taken in love and for restoration (not in carnality or vindictiveness), the proud, unbroken spirit is so manifested that it becomes apparent to all that fellowship with such in the things of God is an impossibility.

Again, there are the causers of division and stumbling-blocks contrary to the doctrine (Rom. 16:17) to be avoided; and other such scriptures might be adduced.

With these before us, and taking into account the divisions, heresies, and lawlessness abounding in the present day, it must be evident that much care and discernment are necessary if the keeping of the feast is to be in character conformed to the divine instructions.

But whilst all care and patience and discernment, especially on the part of those who are the guides, is requisite, the principle must never be departed from, that every believer has a prima facie right to the fellowship, and that once the assembly be satisfied that the person is a believer he cannot be either expelled or rejected, except there is plain scripture warranting such a course.

Let this simple, and we believe divine, basis of reception be departed from, either in principle or by means of some rigid rule as to the mode of receiving which practically excludes saints, and it will soon become painfully evident that there is no middle course between it and the narrow, and ever narrowing, demands of implicit and absolute subjection to the latest dogmas and sentences of the cleverest and strongest-willed of those who aspire to be leaders. Nay, more; the latest “question” which has arisen and been used by Satan to split an assembly into two or more fragments, will become a universal superadded test by which to determine the possibility or impossibility of fellowship.

Many do not see whither they are drifting. Having departed from scriptural simplicity, they have accepted inch by inch, as a necessary sequence, the dicta of their authorities; and will go on to do so until some decision is arrived at too monstrous to be taken without question.

If after lengthened calculations a mathematical or arithmetical result is arrived at that is palpably incorrect, it is surely time to revise the processes by which the result was reached.

If we are called upon as the result of processes of reasoning to reject and treat as heathens and publicans, with whom there can be no fellowship in the things of God, some of the godliest men we know, it is time to review in the presence of God every step by which such a conclusion has been arrived at.

3 A legal term signifying “at first sight.”

Unity and Separation

In the wonderful prayer of John 17 two leading thoughts are emphasised—viz., the unity of all who are Christ’s and their separateness from the world.

And we think it must be apparent to all thoughtful readers of the Word that, from first to last, these two lines of teaching are prominent. This being so, Satan has ever sought, by force or subtlety, to separate what God has united, and to unite what God has separated.

The marvellous unity of the believers, as recorded in the early chapters of the Acts, was at least a partial fulfilment of the prayer of our Lord. To Him it must have been as the anointing oil upon Aaron in its fragrance, and like dew of Hermon in its fruitfulness.

But soon the disintegrating forces introduced and fomented by Satan’s subtlety manifested themselves in murmurings (Acts 6) and disputings (Acts 15); and later on, in the Church at Corinth, the saints are found divided into factions, according to carnal preference for various servants of their one Lord.

Hence the urgent exhortation of 1 Cor. 1:10 to perfect unity of mind and judgment in the Lord, and the many weighty considerations throughout the epistle whereby this exhortation is enforced.

The causes which led to this condition of things at Corinth are dealt with one by one. 1. There is the “wisdom of the world” (chaps, 1, 2). 2. Thinking unduly of men, and so being puffed up for one against another (chaps, 3, 4). 3. Low thoughts as to the holiness becoming the temple of God (chaps, 6, 7). 4. Conceit of knowledge (chap, 8); and, after various needful instructions in chaps, 9 to 12, we have chap, 13 presenting a full view of the characteristics of love, clearly indicating that, with all their knowledge and their gifts, this “uniting bond of perfectness” had been lacking.

And we may well learn therefrom that wherever a divisive spirit is working and divisive courses are pursued, some or all of these causes are operating now as of old.

In the second epistle another feature becomes manifest as clearly showing the working of the enemy. The children of God had been entering into alliances with the world: becoming unequally yoked together with unbelievers. If in the first epistle Satan had succeeded in separating what God had joined, in the second epistle he has succeeded in uniting in a common yoke what God had for ever put asunder.

On the one hand are ranged righteousness, light, Christ, the believer, the temple of God. On the other hand, unrighteousness, darkness, Belial, unbelievers, idols. How could such have fellowship or agreement? How could such co-operate under one common yoke?

It was forbidden under the law to plough with an ox and an ass yoked together (Deut. 22:10). The one was “clean,” the other was “unclean,” fitly representing the utter incompatibility between those who are “washed, justified, and sanctified,’’ and those who are “filthy still.”4 This separation from the world was essential to enlargement of heart (see 2 Cor. 6:11-13). The narrow spirit of sectarianism could well consist with worldly associations. But the mind and Spirit of Christ demand that the world be separated from, and that all who are Christ’s be loved, and their welfare and unity promoted. Faithfulness to the truth and subjection to the Lord alike demand separation from the world. Hence, many of God’s children are being led, in these last days, out from sectarian associations upon this sole ground, that they can no longer remain yoked, in what is professedly Christian fellowship, worship, and service, with those who are not the children of God. “The form of godliness” there may be: but if the power be denied, the responsibility is none the less. The heathen world, with its idolatry, and the religious world, with its profession of Christianity, are the same in the sight of God. His Word is as plain concerning the latter as the former, “From such turn away “(2 Tim 3:5).

Obedience to these plain commands no doubt involves separation sad and painful from many children of God. Those who determine to abide in association with the ungodly are necessarily left to their associations. But this is only a necessary result of obeying the Lord. The object in view is not separation from saints. This the Lord never commanded. His will is separation from the world; but oneness of mind and heart among saints. “Love to all saints “is as plainly the will of the Lord as “Love not the world.” Therefore, though obedience may separate as to walk, as to position, as to service and worship, from other saints, it ought never to alienate affections. Fellowship will be marred, hindered, perhaps rendered very difficult or practically impossible;5 but, nevertheless, as far as it can be maintained without compromise to the truth, it is our bounden duty to maintain it.

It has been said that “separation unto the Lord” demands that there shall be “no fellowship in the things of God” with believers who have not so learned the will of the Lord; that the attitude towards such of the “separated” believer is exactly the same as his attitude towards the world—viz., “No fellowship.”

Fellowship has lately been defined as “having, holding, and using in common.” We willingly accept the definition, believing it to be the truth so far as it goes, and we would ask how much do we “have, hold, and use in common” of the things of God with the world? Surely nothing. With him who has not Christ, who holds not the truth, and who uses not the grace of God, we have nothing in common—fellowship is impossible.

But we would ask again, How much do we have, hold, and use in common with every saint? Surely an infinitude!

We have Christ in common. One common Lord and Saviour, one common salvation, one common faith, one indwelling spirit, one Father and God, one inheritance, incorruptible and undefiled. All that is greatest, most precious, and most glorious is common to all believers, possessed, held, used, in common, though in vastly differing degrees. To go to such an one as we would go to a worldling, refusing all fellowship in the things of God, simply to witness for certain truths which God has taught us, but which he has not learned, is practically to deny that we have anything in common until these truths are accepted.

Little wonder that such testimony, even though it be to the truth, is resented and rejected! Nay, more, has not such action turned very many away from those teachings which would have separated them from the world, and from worldly religious associations, and riveted them firmer than ever to sectarianism and tradition?

4 It has been asserted that the ass did not represent the “unclean” but the “redeemed”—because the firstling of an ass was to be redeemed with a lamb, otherwise its neck was to be broken (Ex. 13:13). If so, then no animal represented the “unclean,” for the firstling; of every unclean beast was in like manner to be redeemed or to be killed (Num. 18:15). Whatever other scriptures may teach as to limitations to co-operation in one yoke of service with Christians who are ignorant, or wilful, or entangled in unscriptural associations, we contend that in this scripture it is the yoking together of believers and unbelievers and nothing else that is referred to.

5 This would apply in the case of one “put away “or “cut off,” according to the Word of God. Obedience to God and love to the soul of the erring one alike demand that there be no fellowship with such. “Let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican.” “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments” (1 John 5:2).

Differences of Judgment

It is the will of God that His children “be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” To this end the apostle prays (Romans 15:5), “Now, the God of patience and consolation grant you to be like-minded one to another according to Christ Jesus, that ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

That this blessed attainment of oneness of mind and judgment should have been frustrated through the working of Satan hitherto, and instead thereof the spectacle presented of a Babel of conflicting doctrines and opinions, is matter for deep humiliation, confession, and sorrow before God.

If any measure of divine unity is to be brought about, it must needs come down to us from above, and the beginning of the blessing will be found in brokenness of heart and true contrition concerning the enormity of the evil.

This, if genuine, will be accompanied by self-examination. “For the divisions of Reuben there were great searchings of heart” (Judges 5:16). The root of all divisions and contrarieties of mind and judgment is the deceitful heart. “They are a people that do err in their hearts,” that is the root; “they have not known My ways,” that is the result (Psalm 95.) One of the most stupendous manifestations of the judgment of God upon human self-exaltation ever known was the confounding of the language of those who had been till then of one language and of one speech, so that they could not understand one another. It was “Babel,” or “confusion.” Is there not even such a judgment from God upon His people at this present time? Are not the conflicting views upon almost every subject within the boards of the Bible; the weird and twisted interpretations; efforts to arrive at oneness of mind, whether on prophetic, ecclesiastical, or any other subject resulting only in the fuller manifestation of the greatness of the gulfs that seem fixed between those who ought to be perfectly joined together—are not these things evidence that judgment has indeed begun at the house of God?

But there was another form of judgment more dreadful still, viz., when God turned the sword of every man against his fellow (see Judges 7:22; 1 Sam. 14:20). And the application of it to New Testament times is no fancy; for do we not read, “But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another “(Gal. 5:15)? Is it not the case that the precious Word of God, to be used in the grace of the Spirit for edifying and comforting, has been handled in the flesh, and made the instrument for hacking and hewing, for dividing and consuming?

It has been well said by one that if unity is ever to be manifested on earth, it will, somehow or other, come by way of the Bible. This we are persuaded is true. Departure from God and from His Word is the root of all the evil, and the cure can only be in a genuine return to that same God and to that same Word.

This return must be individual—each one in his and her own soul’s relation with God —and when grace for such return is given from above, there will be certain infallible marks. First, there will be meekness of spirit and humbleness of mind. Of such it is written: “To this man will I look “(Isa. 66:2); “A broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise” (Psa. 51:17); “The Lord is nigh unto and saveth such” (Psa. 34:18); and finally, “With this man will I dwell” (Isa. 57:15); “When Ephraim spake trembling, he exalted himself in Israel” (Hos. 13:1). There is a gentleness that makes great and a grace in the trembling speech that wins respect and esteem. The truly contrite will tremble at the Word, and will tremble as they speak it. Alas! for the hypercritical dogmatism that issues as thunderbolts its latest constructions and conclusions, demanding that they shall be implicitly received; or, if not, the man who dares to question or reject, is denounced as dishonest or sneered at as an imbecile!

Such a spirit may build indeed a structure in keeping with itself, and boastingly cry, “The temple of the Lord are these”; and glory in a unity gained at the expense of excluding all who have not so learned. But if aught is to be ever wrought that God will own, it will be marked by meekness of spirit and lowliness of mind.

Another mark will ever be characteristic of that which is of God. The element of love will pervade and encircle it. The truth will be spoken in love, and acted in love, and pressed upon heart and conscience in love. Where this exists, evil surmisings will be at an end—“love thinketh no evil.” There will be no vanting of self—no being puffed up, as at Corinth, for one party against another; no glory in majorities; no seeking of our own, but a bearing, a believing, a hoping, an enduring, a long-suffering accompanied with kindness that only God can impart.

The cause that is divine will need no resort to evil-speaking to advance it, and no unseemly forwardness or disparaging of others to maintain it.

Another mark will be the firm refusal to judge in matters concerning which God has not given command to judge.

There are definite rules laid down for the judgment of evil in the assembly, and those who are acting in fellowship with God will seek to act up to these rules, but not to go beyond them.

Who shall dare to legislate for or judge a fellow-servant of the Lord as to how far he shall go in becoming all things to all men, that he might gain them? And if now, one servant of the Lord goes with the Lord’s message where another would not feel liberty to go, who shall judge or condemn him? “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?” “To his own master he standeth or falleth.”

The fact that every one of us shall give account of himself to God, effectually prohibits fellow-servants from judging one another as to their individual path or motives.

The repeated injunction not to judge, first spoken by the Lord (Matt, 7), again by Paul (Rom 14:10-13), and by James (James 4:11, 12), must have a more definite and general application than is usually accorded to it. We are persuaded that the spirit which indulges in perpetual judgment and censure of others is not of God. It alienates and separates many friends; it fosters pride and self-righteousness, and results in barrenness and joylessness of soul.

Very different is the spirit which in love would seek to enlighten, to direct by patient instruction—line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little—into ways and paths more pleasing to God. Love, whilst dealing with the conscience, only draws its gentle cords the tighter. Not so the spirit of judgment. It censures, it condemns, it rebukes, it casts off, it imputes evil motives, and says, “Let the Lord be glorified!” “Malicious words” are not lacking now as of old wherewith to follow those whom fleshly zeal casts out (3 John).

Differences of judgment there will be, and must be, until perfect knowledge is attained. There is the ignorance of a child in the infant class—the ignorance of the boy in the higher form, whose slowness and negligence make him a dunce. There is the ignorance of those who have attained to years, but never had the opportunity to learn, and the yet deeper ignorance of those who have been wrongly taught, and who have afterwards with greater pains to unlearn what they learnt. All these distinctions are to be found in the spiritual sphere, and must be reckoned with. Discernment is needed, suitably to deal with every case, as well as patience and grace. Love will wait and welcome every little step of attainment, whilst impatience and fleshly zeal will seek escape from the burden in the heartless sentence of expulsion from the school.

Unchristlike as well as disastrous and hopeless is the policy that gathers around a little company of clever learners, and denounces all the rest as wilfully ignorant.

There is an essential difference between a precept and a principle. Concerning a precept or command, there is little or no room for diversity of judgment. Even a precept may be misunderstood through the influences of tradition and false teaching, as, for instance, baptism. Disobedience to a precept cannot usually be accounted for on the ground of misapprehension. It arises generally from the want of the will to obey. Very different is it with a principle. The present dispensation is more than any previous period one of principles, requiring spiritual intelligence to apprehend and apply them. And the difficulty of such application is a thousandfold increased by the divisions and confoundings of these last days.

Nothing is more contrary to the mind and spirit of Christ than the judging of others to be ungodly or reprobate, who fail to apprehend principles which to us may be very plain and afford very definite guidance. Yet, is it not the case that some who, after years of blindness, have had their eyes opened to the application of a principle, attempt to force their present judgment upon others who cannot see it, charging with wilful ignorance or dishonesty some who far excel their judges in grace and godliness.

The poor, bewildered sheep know not which way to turn. Thousands are waiting to be gently led and fed with food convenient for them as they are able to bear it. But if their “doubtful thoughts” are to be judged (Rom. 14:1, margin) ere they are accounted fit for any fellowship whatever, how are they to be reached, how helped, how led on into ways which are according to truth? On some this burden is pressing heavily; yet, to tell the truth, they are hindered, perhaps unconsciously, from acting upon their convictions, through fear of the judgment of brethren.

At present there is a process going on which is loosening the bonds of sectarianism. Many minds are being prepared to surrender traditional teaching, and to accept the Word of God as the only and final appeal. If such are held at arm’s length, and if fellowship with them is regarded as necessarily a compromise of the truth, is it any wonder that they are stumbled and turned away from a position which seems to them to involve a bondage to man more exacting than the sectarianism in which they were born and brought up.

Owing to upbringing prejudice and traditional influences there are powerful hindrances in the minds of many believers to the reception of the simple teaching of the Scriptures as to church order, ministry, baptism, and other important and practical truths.

But Satan’s success in sowing discord among brethren who have sought after scriptural simplicity in their mode of assembling has been such that these very gatherings have become a stumbling-block, instead of an attractive power to other believers. Many whose minds were open to receive the teaching of the Scriptures have avoided “the meetings,” fearing lest they should become entangled amid endless controversies.

Necessarily the reception of truths to which they are unaccustomed is with such a slow process: First, they need to be warmed and edified in an atmosphere of love that receives them because they belong to Christ, and upon that ground alone. Then in patience and grace, “line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little,” the truth will work its way, and help be afforded to many who, by a bald presentation of truths for which they were unprepared, would only have been driven away.

On "Identification" With Evangelistic Efforts

It has been observed that at one time, say fifty years ago, good Christians were good Churchmen. They were zealous for their denomination—it was our “Zion;” the “cause” in their neighbourhood was loyally upheld, and “the minister” was regarded as representative of all that was excellent. Apart from him, no project was mooted, no service engaged in, no work for God initiated. Of late years a great change has taken place. The former condition no longer obtains. Evangelistic life and effort could no longer be cramped within the limits of sectarianism—it broke bounds. If the “powers that be,” clergy, elders, &c, went in with it so much the better for them; if not, the work went on without them. The gospel was preached by those who were unordained or unauthorised by man, but from glowing hearts and burning lips. Conversions followed, and the “life “of the Churches gravitated to these Evangelistic efforts, attracted by the warmth, the liberty, the evident blessing that rested upon such testimony, notwithstanding their being suspected, looked askance upon, and in some cases denounced by the unsympathetic authorities. The movements resulted in the formation of missions, evangelistic associations, &c, which were intended to be, and to a certain extent were, on unsectarian lines. In all such work the “lay” element predominated, “the ministers” in most cases standing aloof, or at most giving the instigators a patronising clap on the back. More and more such movements have become dissociated from the regular denominational systems, and the living Christian workers who with heart and soul go in for the gospel—working where they can, in kitchens, halls, tents, or open air—become less and less attached to sects and clergy, and more and more free to examine the Word of God and act upon its instructions.

In many cases, the traditional fetters being broken, it was not long till the truth of believers’ baptism dawned upon their souls. One and another followed in obedience to the Word and were baptized. Next, the privilege of believers as such to meet together for the observance of the Lord’s Supper began to be seen. Without formally disconnecting themselves from their denominations, they met to “break bread” once a month, and found it so blessed and edifying that the once-a-month device soon resolved itself into the scriptural weekly feast on the Lord’s day.

In certain cases the process has varied from the order given above, and a gifted man, with thousands of a congregation, seceding from the denomination with which he was connected, starts gospel work in a large hall, declaring the whole truth of God as far as he has learned it, and together with those who are willing to go on following the light, being baptized, and “breaking bread” as believers on the first day of the week in a separate hall.

Doubtless more or less of ignorance characterises all these movements. Knowledge as to the constructive truth of the Church, always a difficult subject, there may be very little. Excrescences there may be in some quarters, such as the free use of instrumental music, against which some consciences revolt, albeit with hopeless inconsistency they can avail themselves of it in their home sphere; collections may be taken without the unsaved being duly warned that they have no part nor lot in the matter—these and many other things time may modify and further light may mould into shape —but the whole movement is in the direction of the light, and they are blind indeed who do not trace in it the operation of God, the work of the Holy Spirit, the forth-putting of divine energy seeking for the liberty of scriptural ways and bursting the bonds of formalism and sectarianism.

On the other hand, there are gatherings of believers in all parts now who have grown up within the last thirty years or so, mainly out of gospel effort, outside all denominations, maintaining more or less of scriptural order, liberty, and discipline, and varying not a little in their views as to how far it is right to fraternize or co-operate with Christians belonging to the various denominations.

Some hold that anything short of absolute separation is to compromise the truth; that to be present at or take part in a meeting held under the auspices of an association is to practically endorse all that is done, and to sanction all the methods adopted. To appear as the Lord’s servant on such a platform is to become responsible for anything that goes on which may not be in accordance with apostolic simplicity.

Those who hold this view are right to maintain the separate path in accordance with their own convictions. But whenever they set themselves to judge those who do not see with them in this, they are interfering with that which is the prerogative of the Lord alone.

The servant of the Lord must not be the servant of men. If, explicitly or tacitly, he come under obligation to keep back any truth of God, he is subjecting himself to a yoke that is not the Lord’s.

It may not be the Lord’s will that he should speak on baptism, or fellowship, or ministry, or any disputed doctrine: he may minister many times and never be led to touch on such themes, but to be bound to keep them back would be to practically surrender his allegiance to Christ.

But wherever one is free to go with an open Bible, as the Lord’s servant unfettered, there he is at liberty to go without being judged by his brother. “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand “(Rom. 14:4).

It has been found again and again that such missions, associations, &c, as we have referred to were quite free to receive whatever truth God gave them from His Word. Gladly and thankfully they have heard, received, and obeyed. Yet the servant of God who, at the risk of his reputation, went to help them, has been judged and condemned for compromising the truth! Better in such a case to be the condemned than the judge.

The question is therefore raised, At what point are those to be met who are feeling their way after truth and liberty? Is it the duty of those who have more light, and are able to edify, to hold aloof until every link with sectarianism is broken and scriptural order attained? Are multitudes of hungry souls desiring bread to be left without the food that we have to give them because they do not yet see their way to the separate place that is occupied by others, or have not faith to step out? If in the providence of God the way is opened for the Word to be ministered, is the servant of the Lord to stand outside and refuse his ministry until points of arrangement, &c, are adjusted to the measure of his light?

Whilst writing thus we would not be unmindful that this is essentially an age of self-will, and that commonly with the operations of the Spirit of God to which we have referred, there is a tendency on the part of some to strike out in independent ways, setting at defiance the claims of fellowship, and surrendering truth formerly held sacred.

It would require very special wisdom and grace to be truly a helper of such, lest it should prove that the intended help only resulted in the strengthening of evil that ought to have been uprooted.

In our judgment these are matters for the Lord’s servant to settle between himself and his Lord. One may be free, and indeed called, to go where another would feel compromised. It is not to be expected that one mind on such points of detail as to service will be readily attained. Paul and Apollos differed as to the desirability of the latter’s visit to Corinth at that time. Apollos acts on his own judgment; Paul does not judge him or reflect upon him.

Let the motive be tested now in the presence of God, and by His Word as it will be at the judgment-seat of Christ, and the fear of man that bringeth a snare will cease to enthral. It is sometimes well that the Lord’s servants are judged, or rather misjudged and spoken evil of. We are all so prone to be influenced by the thoughts of those with whom we are most closely associated that it is well if we are compelled to learn the divine art of walking before God and seeking to be well-pleasing to the Lord. Happy is he who can truly say, “I’ve now but One to please.”

On Ordination and Acknowledgment of Overseers

“And when they had ordained them elders in every church.”—Acts 14:23.

It is contended by some that the Greek word here rendered “ordain” signifies to appoint by holding up the hand, and that it implies appointment by the vote of the church. It only occurs in one other place, viz., 2 Cor. 8:19, “who was chosen of the churches.” In the latter case, whatever was done was the act of “the churches;” in the former it was the act of the apostles Barnabas and Paul. The fact that this particular word is used cannot make that which was done by the apostles to be the act of the church. Whatever form was gone through, whatever was done, it was the apostles who did it, and it was not confined to some churches—it was “in every church.”

In Titus 1:5 we find that he (Titus) was authorised by Paul to ordain elders in all the churches in Crete. Timothy was specially cautioned to “lay hands suddenly (or hastily) on no man.” Whoever appointed, whether it were Paul or Titus, or possibly Timothy, there was to be no doubt as to the fitness of the person for the work. There was to be no hasty action; otherwise he might, in a sense, make himself “partaker of other men’s sins “(1 Tim. 5:22). In certain passages the laying on of hands is manifestly connected with the conferring of spiritual gift (Acts 8:17; 2 Tim. 1:6). The theory of this is still maintained in Roman Catholic and Episcopal procedure in ordaining to “holy orders.” It is part of the service of the ordaining bishop to say, as he lays his hands on the head of the novice, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost for the work of the ministry.” With the light I have from the Word of God I cannot regard this as anything else than a pure assumption and, if believed in, an utter delusion. I cannot find that power to confer spiritual gift is vested in any individuals now, or in any body of men. The apostles had this power, but there is not a hint in Scripture of this power being transferred to others. Apostolic succession in this sense has no existence.

In 1 Tim. 4:14 we again find the laying on of hands; not here as conferring gift or ordaining to office, but as the form in which the whole body of the elders signified their assent and consent, their entire fellowship with Timothy as the one designated by prophecy for the special endowment of gift which he received by the laying on of the hands of the Apostle Paul.

So also in Acts 13:3: the laying hands on Paul and Barnabas was neither ordination nor the conferring of gift, but a hearty expression of fullest fellowship with those whom the Holy Spirit had called to special service. A happy thing it was for those sent out to be thus assured of the fellowship of the church expressed through those who were “the guides.”

So far, then, we find that as the conferring of gift was a special apostolic function, so was the power to ordain. There is no record of the ordination of elders by any but an apostle, or one, as Titus, specially delegated by an apostle. It is not a church act, but an apostolic act. I never have seen from Scripture that there remains any ordaining power in the church. I do not believe it exists, or else Scripture would have clearly shown us in whom such power is vested.

If, then, the power to ordain was only in the hands of apostles, if it was only temporary and in no way transmitted for the permanent ordering of the church, what was the good of it? What end did it serve? Why was it not continued, and what now answers the ends that were temporarily served by ordination? At that time the churches had not the entire Scriptures as we now have them. They had not the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, or the Epistle to the Corinthians. They were therefore ignorant as to the nature of rule in the assembly, and as to the qualifications necessary ere any could be owned as guides. They therefore required some one in the full knowledge of the mind of the Lord to “set in order the things that were wanting.” In our day the needed work is rather to “strengthen the things that remain.”

What end, then, was served by ordination? Clearly, by this means God pointed out who were the fit persons in their midst to have shepherd or pastoral responsibility, so that these infant churches might not be—shall I say it?—cursed, by having the wrong persons to rule over them.

Surely ordination guided by divine perception on the part of the apostles thus served an important end. But only those specially gifted by God with discernment for this service dare have so acted. To appoint one thus authoritatively to rule or oversight in an assembly who was not fitted would have resulted in irreparable mischief. They were churches before elders were ordained in them. Overseers are not necessary to the existence of a church, but they are essential to the well-being of a church. They were none the less churches, albeit things that were yet wanting had to be set in order.

The word “elder” is found in connection with the Old Testament economy. It does not occur in the New Testament from the first of Romans to the end of 2 Thessalonians. When it is used in the New Testament, as in 1 Peter 5:1, it appears to refer to the man’s fitness as a mature Christian to exercise the function of oversight, being sharply in contrast with “the younger” (see verse 5). I use the word “function” rather than “office,” for the word “office” is not in the original—it is always in italics. Officialism is foreign to the spirit of the New Testament. No amount of official authority will impart one atom of fitness for such a ministry; it must be of the Holy Spirit.

A bishop, overseer, pastor, guide—words all descriptive of the same ministry—must not be a “novice,” or one newly come to the faith. It is an important ministry, and puts him who exercises it necessarily in a position of prominence in the church, which constitutes him at once a mark for the devil. Hence the necessity for his having had experience of God, of the deceitfulness of his own heart, of Satan’s subtlety, and this involves time. One such as Timothy, comparatively young but many years in the Lord, might be well fitted; another, old in natural life, might have been only lately saved, and be a mere babe in experience. But, as a rule, it was the elder men, and not the younger, whom the apostles ordained to oversight work. I conclude, then, that there is no ordaining power at present existing in the church, neither is there any power vested in men to confer spiritual gift.

Ordination never constituted a man a shepherd of the sheep. It pointed out with divine certainty the man who was fitted, but unless qualified by the Holy Spirit putting the earnest care into his heart (see 2 Cor. 8:16), neither ordination, nor education, nor anything else could ever qualify him at all.

What God does desire and look for is that every Christian of mature years, every man that has long known the Lord, should be going on to have the shepherd heart that cares for others. But the Scripture shows clearly that many who, for the time, ought to have been teachers or pastors were mere babes. Age alone won’t do. What is wanted is maturity, growth in grace, spirituality. Even in Acts 6, where it was not a question of pastoral work but ministry in temporal things, the qualifications were exceedingly high. They were to be men of honest report, full of faith and of the Holy Spirit. So when the apostle ordained a man, would he not look out the most mature, the one who had most of the Spirit of Christ, in whom the likeness and lineaments of Christ were most clearly seen? This I believe was the object of ordination: that the right persons, divinely fitted and qualified, might be set in the place of responsibility, and that the church might be led to recognise such.

Sheep are never supposed to elect their own shepherds; the shepherd is set over them by the owner of the flock. It is the Holy Spirit alone that can make an overseer (see Acts 20:28). Only by the Holy Spirit can God confer the necessary wisdom, love, and patience to exercise shepherd care in the flock of God. Unless a man be thus qualified, it is not merely mockery, but it is mischievous and destructive to recognize him in such a position.

But although there is no ordaining power, there is that which we can do. According to 1 Thess. 5:12, we can “esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake.” Not for their office’ sake, or position’s sake, but “for their work’s sake.” That means that their works have been a blessing to the saints, and they have thus discovered in them the marks of a true shepherd. In Heb. 13:7 the word is in the past tense, “Who had the rule over you—who spoke unto you the Word of God.” Possibly some who had passed away are here referred to. They were men of faith whose end and aim was the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and the spiritual well-being of His saints. In Hebrews 13:17 we are taught the divine responsibility that attaches to this ministry: “They watch for your souls, as those that must give account.” It was thus that Jacob acted; if any of Laban’s flock were torn of beasts, he bore the loss himself (Gen. 31:38-40). To take oversight of the flock of God is no light thing, but a solemn responsibility, a serious trust, to be accounted for to the Lord at His judgment-seat.

I believe that not a few who are ordained by man in the denominations have a deeper and truer sense of the responsibility they incur as pastors than many among us whose chief function seems to be to attend oversight meetings rather than to watch for souls. But where true shepherds are seeking, in lowliness, patience, and love, to care for the souls of the believers, responsibility rests on the churches to acknowledge such, to pray for them, to hold up their hands, and to submit to them. How little of this there is among us!

But how can the churches do so unless those who go before them as guides or shepherds are men in whom they can distinctly trace the characteristics of the Lord Jesus Christ?—unless they are men of experience, wisdom, lowliness, patience, love, men ready to say, like Paul, “I am ready to die and live with you.” If such be not their character, how is it possible for the saints to acknowledge, submit, and esteem them very highly in love?

I am persuaded that one thing which has caused us most sorrow and shame, and has brought most dishonour on the truth, is that men who were never qualified by the Holy Spirit have been acknowledged as overseers. There ought to be no recognition of men who are manifestly in a false position.

If there be only one in an assembly divinely fitted, and ten who take the place but are not, better a thousand times that the one only be recognised, and the ten go to their seats and be sheep and not shepherds. I believe we have missed the divine thought in ordination, and not perceiving its significance, we have deprived ourselves of much blessing. Novices have sat unchallenged in oversight meetings, young or carnal persons have visited applicants for fellowship, leadership has drifted into the hands of the forward, the carnal, the inexperienced, and confusion and barrenness have been the result.

May we have grace to own our error and our shame, and to seek of the Lord that fitted persons be raised up in every assembly to exercise shepherd care, and that the sheep may have grace to acknowledge them and submit to them.

The Ministry of the Word in the Assembly

I have the impression that the coming together of the children of God on the first day of the week occupied in apostolic days an even more prominent place than it does among us.

Read Heb. 10:24, 25. “Let us consider one another to provoke [or ‘for a provocation,’ i.e., not to others but to ourselves] unto love and to good works; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as ye see the day approaching.”

Now compare this with 1 Cor. 11:17, 18, 20, also chap. 14:23. To “come together in the Church” does not mean in a building called a church, but “in Church capacity.” These passages I read in order to place before you the divine thought of the whole Church coming together, and that, when the Church was not split up into different denominations and sects, and when it was separate from the world. Such a coming together of the whole Church was possible under those conditions. This “coming together,” which the believers were exhorted “not to forsake,” answered many important ends. In the passage we have read in Heb. 10 it is connected with “considering one another.” It is the occasion above all others when the saints have opportunity to see one another and to meet with one another, and if they neither see nor meet each other there is little likelihood of their considering one another. In this respect alone, therefore, it fulfils an important function.

In the first instance it was the occasion of their observing the Lord’s Supper, or “breaking bread “together in remembrance of Him. Connected with this there was necessarily worship, praise, thanksgiving—all which was fitting and edifying. But it was also an occasion upon which the Word of God was ministered.

I do not know that we have much information in the Scriptures as to the coming together of the saints for the ministry of the Word on other occasions. I do not say that they did not come together at other times for that purpose; but in Corinthians and in Hebrews it is in all probability the coming together on the first day of the week that is referred to.

From the very beginning of the Church’s history on through the whole age the first day of the week has been kept as a sacred day, and it is our happy privilege so to observe it. It is not a legal enactment, but it is one of our most blessed privileges.

I am glad to find that in the assemblies which have reverted to the first principles of the Scriptures for guidance, there is an effort made by most to come together on the first day of the week, and I don’t think we can be too much exhorted to abide by this scriptural and healthful practice habitually. Circumstances may often arise to hinder, especially those who serve in family life; but to allow trifles to prevent, or to be absent through carelessness or indifference, is to incur serious loss, and indicates a condition of soul far from that which is pleasing to God.

But in apostolic days, and as a matter of fact still, many are with us on the first day of the week who cannot get any other time, hence the immense importance of the little time that may be spent together being utilized according to the wisdom of God.

Now, I would not say a single word to detract from the importance of that which forms the central thought in the gathering. It is a gathering on the Lord’s Day around the Lord’s table to eat the Lord’s Supper. These three things seem to me to have an obvious and significant connection. We gather around the Lord Himself or unto His name to do that which He commanded us to do. The fact that this command of our Lord’s, first given on “the same night on which He was betrayed,” was afterwards by the direct injunction of the ascended Lord repeated and confirmed to the Churches of the Gentiles by the Apostle Paul, gives it a very special claim upon us.

This gathering together, then, is a time of “communion” or “fellowship.” They are the same word in the original. But communion is two-sided. It includes the worship, praise, thanksgiving, and prayers which ascend by Christ Jesus from us to God. But it also implies that God has opportunity of speaking to us.

In Ex. 25:22, God said to Moses concerning the mercy-seat, “There will I meet with thee and I will commune with thee.” And in Num. 7:89 we read that when Moses went into the tabernacle to speak with God, “then he heard the voice of One speaking unto him from off the mercy-seat” Thus we see that communion is two-sided, and that service which consists only of prayer and praise cannot properly be called communion. The other side, the divine side, is the hearing of the Bridegroom’s voice. That is the side upon which I desire now to dwell for a little.

I will ask you to look at a word in 1 Pet. 4:10, 11. “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.” That word “oracles” only occurs four times in the New Testament. Stephen speaks of the “lively oracles” received by the fathers. Paul, in Rom. 3:2, enumerates as one of the chief advantages of the Jews that unto them were committed the oracles of God. In Heb. 5:12 those who for the time ought to have been teachers required to be taught again the very first principles of the oracles of God. Comparing the four passages together I think the term “oracles” refers clearly to that which God has spoken, and which is given to us in the Scriptures.

All that God ever did communicate to us of His word, His mind, His will, He has been pleased to communicate through Israel. The “Word made flesh,” and the written Word have alike come to us Gentiles through Israel. And it is these communications of God through holy men of old who spake moved by the Holy Spirit which are called “the oracles of God.”

When it is said, “If any man speak let him speak as the oracles of God,” it seems to me that he who so speaks ought to recognise that he is speaking for God, that for the time being he is the one by whom God is conveying a message to His people, the channel through which God is speaking to their hearts.

Now this has nothing to do with the question of “inspiration.” A man may be speaking a God-given message without any pretence to being inspired. The written Word alone is inspired (2 Tim. 3:16). That which any man receives to minister to the Church will be (like prophecy of old) to “edification, exhortation, and comfort,” but the man is not therefore infallible. Even the prophets in the early Church were not above the judgment, discernment, of their brethren (1 Cor. 14:29). Something of the man, something of the flesh, may mingle with that which is from God.

Now you see this is the Godward side of communion. I ought to expect, I do expect, that when any one stands up to read God’s Word, or to speak from it in the assembly, he is going to be the communicator to me of thoughts which God has given him for my blessing.

I am afraid that we have very little realised the deep responsibility that attaches to the ministry of the Word of God in the assembly.

Has it not been taken up without a due sense of responsibility, in a light, indifferent way, as if anything would do, as if to speak just what comes up was the divine principle of ministry? One goes with unexercised hearty saying no doubt God will give us something. Another starts up and speaks from a verse something that “did his own soul good.” And all this is said to be of the Spirit!

Ought not those who are gifted of God to teach or to exhort to be in the very secret of His presence, hearing from God that he may have to give not only that which has done his own soul good, but that which is suited to the need of the hearers? A shepherd is very careful how the flock is fed. I have seen a shepherd at a certain time of the day go out with his dog to chase the sheep from the rich pasture of the valley up to the poorer pasture of the hill tops; too long amid the clover would have hurt them. So it is for those who minister to the flock of God, with divine wisdom to know what is the present need of the saints, and getting from God to be able to meet that need.

All this, I think, and more is included in the words, “Let him speak as the oracles of God.”

It clearly implies that he speaks according to the Word of God; nothing else could be from God, seeing he has given us therein a complete revelation, “All things that are profitable for life and godliness.” We don’t require to go outside the Scriptures; all that is needed is that God by His Spirit be the guide, the instructor, the filler of the one who ministers the Word.

I am not going to contend for the clerical position, or for any formal human ordination; this subject I have recently given my mind upon plainly enough; but I do not hesitate to say that many an “ordained minister” feels deeply the responsibility of being put in charge of the congregation he ministers to, and truly seeks to get a message from God for the people; whilst, on the other hand, there are those who, without ordination, take upon themselves to minister the Word with very little sense of responsibility to God. It is this sense of responsibility to God in the ministry of His Word that I believe to be one of our deepest needs.

That a man must necessarily go to college, and pass through a certain curriculum, in order to be able to minister the Word, we do not believe. Though I can boast of little learning myself I do not disparage it; I am thankful for what little I have, and am glad to be debtor to others who know more.

But let it ever be remembered that nothing worth having is got without labour, and this specially applies to the knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures. A haphazard sort of way of ministering the Word will not permanently edify. We must bend ourselves to labour, and search and learn in some college; and the only true one for us is at the feet of the Lord Jesus—the Instructor, the Spirit of Truth. Failing diligent labour it will be poor food that we shall have to give to the flock of God.

In Proverbs 13:4 we read, “The soul of the diligent shall be made fat.” In outward things we know it is the diligent workman that “gets on,” but the same principle applies to spiritual progress.

There is such a thing as a spiritual sluggard, and there is such a thing as a diligent labourer in the Word—one who works out the vein of silver, one who digs for the jewels of truth, deep things and precious that are not obtained without labour.

I do not mean by this that one can by labour prepare a subject to be given in the Sunday morning meeting. I might do so, and might find, when in the meeting, that the Spirit of God was leading in quite another direction. But the diligent searcher of the Word in the presence of God, who does so for the nourishment of his own soul, esteeming the Word of God “more than his necessary food,” “nourished up in the words of faith and exercised unto godliness,” will “have to give to him that needeth.” “Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished; but he that gathereth by labour shall increase “(Prov. 13:11). See what a premium God puts upon labour! We have great talk in these days about the dignity of labour and so on, and God knows that labour is best for every man, whether it be by the hand or the head. But look beneath the surface here, and you will see that there is a man who gets his knowledge of the Word of God cheaply, like the man who makes a fortune by speculation—by a few strokes of his pen;—he gets his knowledge second-hand—by hearing addresses, by reading books—but bestows little labour in diligently searching the Word. He may be able to give it forth fluently, and be regarded as having a wonderful gift; but knowledge so gained will not increase. It will not fatten your own soul; it will not edify; it will not bless; it will not tend to form Christ in those who hear. It may puff up and develop spiritual conceit, but it will not exercise the heart and the conscience.

I think we have thus something of the sense of the Word, “He that gathereth by labour shall increase.” Though the richest of all the treasures of God’s Word are on the surface, where a babe may pick them up, yet there are many precious truths which, like the vein of silver ore, have to be dug for deep before they are reached.

I have been myself by God’s grace a “gatherer “and a digger in the mine of the Scriptures in some little measure for over thirty years. Though it is not my habit to deliver prepared sermons, nevertheless I do not speak that which I have not searched out and thought of.

I would commend to you the duty and blessed privilege of diligently searching the Scriptures. Search them for the profit of your own soul first, esteeming them as the bread for your spiritual life. Ponder them verse by verse. And if you search out a subject, search out all that bears upon the subject. Get a thorough understanding of it, and when the time comes God will enable you to bring it forth out of the treasure of your heart where you have stored it, for the good of others. The Holy Spirit of God will help your infirmities, bringing thoughts and texts to your memory as needed, and giving you “utterance “as well.

Turn with me now to 2 Cor. 3:17: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty.” I am not going to expound this passage, but there is an expression current among us, “the liberty of the Spirit,” that I want to say a little about. I fear a not uncommon idea of the meaning of this is “liberty for any man to take part.” That is not what this passage teaches. I believe the meaning here is that where the Spirit of the Lord is there is access with liberty, freedom, boldness, into the immediate presence of God, without a vail between. So that if the phrase “liberty of the Spirit,” as applied to ministering in the assembly, be taken from this verse, it has no such application. Nevertheless, we learn from other Scriptures that the Spirit of God is the sovereign distributor of gifts in the assembly. Read i Cor. 12:4-11. Here is the absolute will of the Spirit in the distribution of gift.

When this is recognised, a “one-man ministry,” in the sense of setting aside the ministry of others who are gifted by the Spirit, is a thing to be entirely rejected. None but the Spirit of God can enable any man to be a teacher or an exhorter; it is a divine qualification, and he who is so qualified by the Spirit is responsible as a steward for the right and diligent use of the gift he has received * (See 1 Peter 4:10). The Spirit of God may base this fitness upon natural ability; there is such a thing as “sanctified natural ability.” If God wants a man for a special work He chooses a suitable man. He chose Saul of Tarsus, whose character, ability, and upbringing fitted him specially to be the receiver of the Spirit’s gift for special ministry, without which all would have been useless.

There are doubtless minor as well as major gifts. One man may be gifted to hold an audience in close attention to the truth he utters for an hour at a time; others with a measure of gift, if they attempted it, would utterly fail. But the one with the lesser gift might be able, by the Spirit of God, to speak “five words” (see 1 Cor. 14:19) in power, and these five words might be the very thing that was needed to lift the whole assembly out of a “slough of despond.” One may be a Boanerges, “son of thunder”; another a Barnabas, a “son of consolation.” God bestows the variety of gift in order to meet the variety of need. Thus the whole principle of clerisy is set aside when the sovereign will of the Spirit of God is owned and His presence realised. There must, therefore, be in the assembly “liberty,” not for the flesh, not for any man to do as he likes, but for God to use those whom He has qualified.

It is for each one to exercise his ministry according to the nature and measure of the gift bestowed. The teacher is to wait on his teaching, the exhorter on his exhorting. (See Rom. 12:6-8.)

Now, we have accepted this principle—that gift, power, qualification for ministry, is of the Spirit of God and according to His will. It is one of the truths that have brought us into the position we occupy.

We have rejected a ministry the qualifications for which are of man. Ability that is merely the outcome of educational training, backed by the authority which human ordination may impart, we do not recognise as of God. Often has it been said of a minister, He is no preacher, but he is a good man.” So far well, but if God did not qualify him to be a minister of the Word, then he is not occupying the place in the divine membership of the body of Christ that God has given him. Rather is he in all probability hindering others whom God has qualified.

Thus have we rejected human ministry, and have come together to wait upon God. What we have expected to get is the genuine ministry which is of the Spirit. Have we got it? Beloved brethren, this is a solemn question.

Have not words been uttered in the assemblies, addresses given, and if the Spirit of God were asked, Did He indite those words, were they His message? would He not reply as of old: “I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them?” (Jer. 14:14). Oh, that God would awaken us to see the shame of our failure in this matter! Oh, that He Himself would raise up in our midst qualified men: men of spirituality and godliness and experience, who have made it their business by labour to gather out of the Word of God at the feet of the Lord Jesus: men mighty in the Scriptures, whose words when they open their lips are to edification, to exhortation, and to comfort, and every heart must own it. There is always a large proportion of the flock of God that need to be comforted, and a ministry that is not to comfort is not of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter.

A great part of a shepherd’s business is to see that the flock is fed. “Feed my sheep, feed my lambs,” the Lord said to Peter.

I would now call your attention to what has often been remarked, viz., the place occupied by 1 Cor. 13. As one has beautifully put it: “The gifts of chap. 12 have to be baptised in the love of chap. 13 ere they can be exercised in the power of chap, 14.” You may well make a note of that. And as bearing upon this read Prov. 12:18: “There is that speaketh like the piercings of a sword; but the tongue of the wise is health.” We have heard in our day plenty of illustrations of speaking “like the piercings of a sword.” Aye, ten times have we heard it for once that we have listened to the “tongue of the wise,” that brings health to the fainting, the feeble, the sick. There was a preacher who sought to find out “acceptable words,” even “words of truth” (Ecc. 12:10). May God give us grace to covet earnestly this gift, that we may minister health to the children of God. “Sound “doctrine is “healthful “or “wholesome” doctrine. And thus if ministry were getting its true place among us we should find that backsliding would be anticipated, and Satan would not get the advantage that he often does get.

Whilst the Spirit qualifies it is the Lord that administers the gift. (See 1 Cor. 12:5.) All that is said and done, every exercise of gift is to be in subjection to the Lord. Thus will ministry be in wisdom. If it be before the breaking of bread divine wisdom would surely have it of such a nature as to help the hearts of the saints toward apprehending the person and work of the Lord Himself. It will lead to the cross, and so prepare hearts intelligently and humbly to keep the feast.

Often a long time is spent in a hymn and a prayer—a hymn and a prayer and no word from God spoken. I believe it often arises from a sort of spiritual lethargy. It is so much easier to give out a hymn than to wait on God for a suited word. At such times how often has one longed to hear a word from God—to hear the Bridegroom’s voice!

Sometimes one will rise and read a portion of Scripture that has no bearing on the meeting, and the spiritual mind is forced to judge it out of place. As God has bestowed the gift, so will He grant the wisdom, the direction, and the power to those who in conscious weakness count upon Him by faith to enable them.

Whilst I would deplore the turning of our morning meetings into mere occasions for ministry, yet I believe they might be availed of much more than they are in wisdom, in grace, in the power of the Holy Spirit for real edification.

Fundamental Error and Scriptural Discipline

There are many Christians who have no sympathy at all with the heresy known as “the non-eternity of punishment,” who firmly believe it to be a serious error—whether it terminates the sufferings of the wicked by extinction or by restitution finally to the favour of God—but who are nevertheless in doubt as to how they should act towards those who hold these doctrines.

Some deny that there is any Scripture warrant for exclusion from an assembly on the ground of doctrine. Such hold that evil in practice alone can be so judged; erroneous beliefs, they say, are to be met by internal discipline, by instruction, conviction, reproof, and so on, but not by excommunication.

Others hold that he who teaches such errors ought to be “put away” or “cut off,” but that one who holds the error but does not teach it is to be borne with.

The enormously rapid spread of these doctrines throughout all Christendom, and the indifference with which they are regarded by some who are themselves “sound in the faith,” seem to call for A Decided Facing of the Question as to how the holders of such errors are to be dealt with according to the Word of God.

In Galatians 5:9 the action of leaven is used to illustrate the contaminating effect of evil doctrine, exactly as in 1 Corinthians 5:6 it is used regarding moral evil In both cases, therefore, the leaven must be dealt with in the same way, i.e., purged out. This, we think it must be admitted, is a reasonable deduction.

In Galatians 5:12 it is written: “I would they were even cut off that trouble you.” In the Revised Version it is given: “I would that they which unsettle you would even cut themselves off.” A similar expression occurs in 1 Corinthians 5:2, viz.: “That he which hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.”

But failing their cutting themselves off, or being taken away by the judgment of God, solemn responsibility is laid upon the Church To Exclude Them.

In I Corinthians 5:13: “Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” In Gal. 5: “I have confidence in you through the Lord that ye will be none otherwise minded, but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.”

It was on account of having made shipwreck of the faith that Hymenaeus and Alexander were “delivered unto Satan” (1 Tim. 1:19, 20). The nature of their error, or at least that of Hymenaeus, may be gathered from 2 Timothy 2:17: “Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some.” It was therefore on doctrinal and not on moral grounds that they were dealt with.

In Revelation 2 Ephesus is commended for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitanes. Pergamos is censured for having in their midst “those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.” It is not said, “those who practise their deeds,” or “those that teach their doc trine,” but “those who hold” it.

To Hold it Was Enough to Warrant Their Being Excluded, and in no other way could the approval of the Lord be secured. It is always necessary, however, to distinguish between persons who may have “doubtful thoughts,” who having come in contact with error are affected or shaken, and others who “hold” the error or are held by it, in spite of patient effort to deliver them from it. Amputation is never resorted to until every known remedy has been tried and failed. There are truths in Scripture, many, upon which Christians of the most godly character have, in all ages, held Diverse Views.

To judge every diversity of mind or judgment as to doctrine to be equally serious would lead to the overturning of all Christian fellowship. Probably no two persons could be found who were exactly of one mind upon all points, all doctrines, or the meaning of all Scriptures.

A certain house had a defect in one of the chimneys. In order to rectify it, it was necessary to take a stone out of the solid wall. This was done, the defect rectified, the stone replaced, and no harm done. But suppose it had been thought desirable to take out a foundation stone, how very much more serious would the case have been. The integrity of the whole structure would thus have been endangered. In like manner there are truths in Scripture which are fundamental. To go astray on these involves overthrowing the faith, or, as elsewhere expressed, making shipwreck of the faith. Such are “the doctrine of Christ,” including the glory of His Person (2 John 9, 10); the Gospel of the grace of God (Gal. 1:6-9); the doctrine of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:33, 34); and in Hebrews 6 there are six doctrines declared to be fundamental, the first two of which are “repentance and faith,” and the last two “resurrection of the dead” and “eternal judgment.” We do not stay here to comment on the second couple, viz., “the doctrine [or teaching] of baptisms [not baptism] and of the laying on of hands.” Not baptism and laying on of hands but the teaching implied in these familiar Mosaic rites, “baptisms” (a word never used in the plural when applied to New Testament baptism, therefore referring to ceremonial washings), and laying of hands on the head of the offerings, the two classes of ceremonial acts typifying “regeneration and atonement.”

For our present purpose we emphasize these points: first, that these are fundamentals—they pertain to the foundation, not to the superstructure—therefore the faith that has not these for its basis is not a genuine faith; secondly, that one of these is “eternal judgment.” To say, with some, that eternal judgment only means “the eternal consequences of an act,” is tantamount to saying that he who shoots a vicious dog visits it with eternal judgment—the consequences of shooting it are eternal! Scripture invariably conveys the thought of the punishment of sin being eternal, conscious suffering.

We conclude from this Scripture that this doctrine pertains to the foundation, and that, therefore, this error is not to be treated with toleration, but to be purged out. The Sadducees denied the resurrection and also the existence of angel and spirit. Modern Sadducean doctrine denies the existence of spirit apart from body. Non-eternity is essentially, therefore, the leaven of the Sadducees, and as such must be purged out. But they must be blind indeed who do not see that the non-eternity error touches every point in the circle of divine truth.

It touches the constitution of man, and the divine record of his creation. It touches the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. It touches the doctrine of the atonement, of conscious existence after death, of resurrection, of judgment. Admit this error, and the whole superstructure of Christian doctrine is shaken to its centre.

And one of the most serious aspects of it is only discovered in seeking to deal with those who become entangled in its meshes. It is that genuine reverence for the inspired Word of God is practically surrendered, and necessarily so, by those who contend for it. The plainest statements of Scripture have to be explained away and got rid of by some process of false reasoning; their obvious force must be evaded; and the shufflings that are resorted to in the attempt betray the havoc that has been wrought in the mind and conscience of those who have been led into it. In illustration of this we only refer to one text, viz.: Luke 23:43. So clearly and unanswerably does the Lord here assert His own conscious existence, and that of the crucified, but pardoned, robber after death, that at all hazards the words of the blessed Lord must be perverted, and made to teach something else than their obvious sense—something that will be consistent with the annihilation theory. What, then, is the way out of the dilemma? Simply alter the punctuation, “Verily, I say unto thee to-day, thou shalt be with Me in paradise.”6 Such is the power of error, that the conscience of eminent Greek scholars can be brought down so low as to endorse a rendering that a schoolboy would be punished for; and that in the teeth of the authority of both Authorised and Revised versions! Surely a good conscience must have been somehow lost (as in 1 Tim. 1:19) before such shipwreck could be made of the truth.

In vain do those who condescend so to tamper with the Lord’s words contend for the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures.

As already referred to, differences of mind as to many doctrines may and do exist among true believers consistently with the maintenance of a good conscience, genuine godliness, and soundness in the faith as to the great foundation doctrines. But “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” The letting go of foundation truth is the plague spot that indicates a deep-rooted disease. The mystery of the faith can only be held in a pure conscience (1 Tim. 3:9). The power for holding the faith in its integrity is the Holy Spirit. Thus Paul exhorted Timothy: “That good thing which was committed unto thee, keep by the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in us.” If a defiled conscience be allowed, the Spirit is grieved and the power for maintaining the truth is gone. It is therefore certain that where fundamental error is embraced conscience has first been violated. This may not be apparent to others; it may have been in such a way as not to appear in the life, but as surely as the leprous spot on the forehead declared the man to be “utterly unclean” so surely does fundamental error discover the moral condition of him who holds it.

To say that a man may

Hold These Views and be in the assembly if only he does not teach them is altogether futile. He may not publicly teach what he holds, but depend upon it he cannot help doing so in private intercourse, and that mainly amongst those who have the first claim on shepherd care, viz., the young and inexperienced.

One who is merely perplexed in mind does not usually talk about his difficulties except to those who are likely to be able to help him; but if ever one really holding fundamental error has managed to keep his place in an assembly it has sooner or later been found that irreparable mischief has been done. Of those who hold such fundamental error it is written: “Their word will eat as doth a canker.” Leaven will spread, transforming that which comes under its influence into its own character.

Absolute Separation from those who are possessed by such error is the only divinely-appointed way.

The doctrine of the non-eternity of punishment is the devil’s gospel for a world that loves its sins. It is the fomenter of suicide, for wherever annihilation doctrine is propagated suicide becomes epidemic. One barrier against the torrent of iniquity is being removed that the enemy may come in like a flood. May the Spirit of the Lord lift up the standard and enable the children of God to be firm and uncompromising where the foundations are concerned.

From 1 Timothy 1:20, as well as from 1 Cor. 5:5, we learn that the purpose of the extreme act of discipline, viz., “putting away from among themselves,” or “delivering to Satan” the one who has embraced error or practised sin, is restoration. “That he may learn [or be disciplined] not to blaspheme:” “that the spirit may be saved.” It has sometimes been opposed as being harsh, and more likely to harden than to be beneficial. But if, as we doubt not, it is the Lord’s way of dealing with such cases, then unquestionably it is not only the best, but the only right and safe course. All godly ends will be best served by obedience to the Lord’s will, however painful to all concerned.

6 Since writing this article, we have been told that there are some who prefer to punctuate this verse, placing the comma after “to-day,” who fully believe in the conscious existence after death and until resurrection both of the Lord and of the pardoned robber. We are surprised to learn this, and personally have never met with such. But we might adduce another instance of the same kind, and more flagrant, viz.: that though fire may be everlasting, the chaff, when thrown into it, is immediately consumed and becomes non-existent; or, that the worm may never die, but that upon which it feeds is exhausted. When or where, then, are the “weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth?” And if some of the wicked have “no bands in their death,” when or where is it that they are “utterly consumed with terrors” (Ps. 73).

Love To All Saints

Amid our responsibilities toward those with whom we are immediately associated, we are prone to forget that we have responsibilities in a larger sphere, from which we cannot escape if we would, even toward every child of God, every member of the body of Christ.

It is wholesome to be reminded of this, and of the truth so plainly taught in the New Testament, that all believers, however scattered or divided they may be on earth, are absolutely one in Christ, and “members one of another.”

It is treason against the head wittingly to disown a single member of the body. It is an insult to the Father wittingly to disown a single child in the family.

Language often betrays deeper currents of thought and feeling than it is intended to convey. The application of such a term as “the body” to a denomination, such as “the Independent body,” or “the Baptist body,” indicates how completely the truth of the oneness of the body of Christ has passed out of sight and out of mind. Equally so does the application of the term “the brethren “to any smaller fraternity than all who by regeneration of the Holy Spirit are born into the family and made sons of God. There are what may be called “counter truths” in Scripture. That is, truths that may, to a superficial glance, appear antagonistic or conflicting, but which in reality are like the two sides of an arch, designed to form, from their very opposition, mutual support, each to the other.

It is most sorrowful and disastrous when such “counter truths “are set forth in such a way as to weaken or neutralise each other. And yet so foolish are we, so one-sided in our tendencies, that nothing is more common.

For example, who has not heard the responsibility of each believer toward all saints so taught as to leave the impression that there is something essentially incompatible between love to all saints and faithfulness to the entire truth of God? Or, again, how often has the truth as to the condition of the individual heart and conscience before God been urged in such a way as to leave the impression that there was something essentially antagonistic to this in that line of truth which pertains to the house of God, to the saints as gathered together unto the name of the Lord!

Our object is to show the Divine harmony that exists between all the truths of the Scripture, and that the glory of God is concerned in our holding and practising, not one-sided truth, but each and every truth in its own place and proportion.

There are two passages which touch upon our responsibilities toward “all saints”—one in Eph. 1:15, “Love unto all the saints”; the other, Eph. 6:18, “Prayer for all…saints.”

It is an impossibility to love all saints unless we see them as they are in the purpose of God and on the heart of Christ. No other love is Divine. Much that passes for love is like honey in the offering; it is essentially natural, not spiritual. It is largely the outcome of similarity of disposition and of mind, and it lasts only until circumstances arise which bring out dissimilarity of mind and disposition.

On the other hand, there is much that passes for love which lacks that element so forcibly expressed in Eph.6:24, “All that love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption.” There is a spurious love that is maintained only at the surrender of truth. It is remarkable how in the two latter epistles of John, which doubtless have special bearing upon “the last days,” the two are so closely intertwined. No opposing of truth to love or love to truth is here. As in the perfect Example, “grace and truth “were perfectly combined, so in the mind and teaching which is of the Spirit of God it is “whom I love in the truth”; and He who presses the command “that we love one another” has “no greater joy” than to hear that His children “walk in truth.” To “walk in the truth” is to “walk in the light,” and in this path alone can fellowship be maintained with the Father and the Son and with fellow-saints.

However narrow the path may appear, and the more evil the day, the narrower it must become, yet there is nothing in the most implicit obedience at all incompatible with the claims of love. “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments” (1 John 5:2).

The love that has “no greater joy “than to hear of those dear to it walking in the truth will desire and seek for all saints no lower blessing than to be brought into and maintained in the same path. Love will seek the deliverance of all saints from the bondage of error.

Darkness and error imply bondage, just as light and truth imply liberty.

The Psalmist could cry, “O, send out Thy light and Thy truth,” knowing that thus would he be led to the altar of God, to the holy hill of Jehovah’s dwelling-place. That was the meeting-place for Jehovah and His people, and there would the godly meet with each other as all together went up to the Lord to worship.

Even so now, love, as in the case of Epaphras, will labour fervently in prayer for all saints, desiring for them all that they may “stand perfect and complete in all the will of God” (Col. 4:12).

Love will stand aloof from all that is not of God, bearing testimony for the truth, just in order that the consciences of saints who are entangled in human devices may be exercised. It is thus that love seeks their deliverance.

In the days of David, captains, leaders, priests, and people all rejoiced as the ark was being brought back again after its long absence. Any Israelite acquainted with the law might have known, what David afterwards discovered, that “none ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites.”

Suppose that such an one had been there, how could he have joined in the singing and the dance? How could he have had fellowship in the pageantry of that day? Surely truth and love alike would have held him apart in the place of intercession rather than in the place of fellowship.

And is it not the same still? If eyes are opened to the truth as to gathering to the Name of the Lord, will love be found upholding that which practically opposes the truth, enslaves the saints, and separates by denominational barriers those who ought to be manifestly, as they are in the counsels of God, ONE?

If the truth is apprehended as to ministry in the Spirit, will love be found upholding a system which ignores all that God has taught on the subject in His Word?

If the truth as to gathering on the first day of the week to show the Lord’s death in the breaking of bread has been learned, will love ally itself with a system that forbids it, such as “the (so called) Salvation Army,” or that substitutes for the Divine order a human device such as a sacrament once in six months, once in three months, or once a month, which latter is as utterly without Divine precept or precedent as the rest?

If truth has taught the baptising of believers, will love consent to witness without protest such a perversion as the sprinkling of an infant?

Surely love will ever seek to lead into the truth those who are ignorant of it, and be jealous lest by word or act the claims of truth upon the conscience should be neutralised or diminished.

Nothing will go further as a quietus to an uneasy conscience than to see one who has learned and acted upon any truth consenting to waive it for a time, as though it were a matter of mere opinion or convenience.

Sometimes the grace and power, the love and unity of saints fifty or sixty years ago, who had emerged from sectarian thraldom, is descanted upon. Great must have been the influence on the consciences of others of their heavenly-minded conversation and their unworldly ways, and doubtless the lack of power now is largely due to the lack of personal grace and godliness.

But if it is supposed that the grace and love of those days meant a quiet acquiescence in what they saw to be not of God, the mistake may be easily discovered by reference to the tracts and pamphlets then published and circulated. The writings of those days were largely for the individual heart and conscience, but they were also largely for the exposing of existing errors—for the pulling down and the rooting up that must precede a planting or a building that God can bless.

Now-a-days there is a tendency to sow without breaking up the fallow ground, to plant without rooting out the error—to build without pulling down the structure that is not of God. Every kind of ministry is needed. There is need for the ploughing, the rooting up, the pulling down, as well as for the sowing, the watering, the building. There is need for the “son of thunder” as well as “the son of consolation”; and need, above all, for the heavenly grace and wisdom that makes room for all, instead of setting the one to neutralise or oppose the other.

The truth in practice will never be disassociated from the Cross in experience. And no small part of the offence of the Cross is to be misunderstood and separated from the company of those whose blessing alone is the object in view. There was One who uttered the sorrowful complaint, “For My love they are Mine enemies.”

If love had not borne an unflinching testimony to the truth, grace alone would have engendered no such open enmity. But truth and grace combined must either be yielded to or resisted. If yielded to, how sweet, how beautiful! If resisted, how bitter, how sad.

But whilst “love in the truth” will never countenance or condone that which is not of God, it will always seek to maintain intercourse with those who are the Lord’s, with a view to serving them in their highest interests.

There is a Pharisaic separation that totally ignores those who, being mixed up with the world in the various denominations of Christendom, are nevertheless one in life eternal, one in the anointing of the Spirit, one as members of the body of Christ, and sons in the family of God.

To have no eye or heart for those who “follow not with us,” albeit we, as the disciples of old, may indeed be following the Lord, is a sure indication that fellowship with the thoughts of God has been giving place to the sectarian spirit of the world. Thus the Spirit is grieved, blessing is hindered, and saints are repelled instead of being attracted.

Needless barriers may be raised by unwise, hard, and bitter speech. “Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt”— “speaking the truth in love.”

A dread of defilement and contamination, almost amounting to superstition, sometimes hinders intercourse that might be blessed.

Much more might be done than is done in the way of inviting Christians to Bible readings, or to addresses calculated to help them on in the truth, and by circulating suitable books or tracts. All this may be done without compromise of any truth.

If Divine love were in lively exercise there would be more holy ingenuity displayed in reaching both saints and sinners with the Word of Life.