(Continued from page. 298.)
5. "THOU HAST NOT DENIED MY NAME."
It is a revelation of Christ's Word, and the freshened sense of relationship to Christ,-the new realization of what He is to His people,-that practically produce Philadelphia. Every genuine revival, as I have already said, necessarily has something of the spirit of this,-tends, at least, towards it. Of course, when I speak of revival, I do not mean simply the conversion of souls, even in numbers :the revival I am speaking of is of saints, not sinners, although naturally the effect of this will be seen in a new power in the gospel for the conversion of sinners. But when interest in the word of God is revived, and the love of Christ is felt in new power in the soul, increased communion with Him will issue in the "communion of saints" being more valued and more sought after, and the spirit of obedience will cause the "yoke" with those who are not Christ's to be an intolerable bondage.
If such a revival were felt in the whole Church of God, how surely would every chain of this kind be broken by the energy of the Spirit of God, and the whole Church be brought together! But such a thing has never taken place, and the consequence of local and partial revivals has been therefore in fact more or less to separate Christians from Christians,-those who can go on with the world and with the worldly from those who cannot do so. Hence every such movement has to bear the reproach, on the part both of the world and of many Christians quite as much as the world, of causing divisions, which it is true it does and must do, and which the Lord's words declare He came to do-"not to send peace, but a sword," and to make a man's foes to be "those of his own household."
In a state of things like this, compromise and expediency soon begin to do their fatal work. That which the Spirit of God alone can accomplish is taken in hand by the wisdom of man, Scripture itself being perverted to its use-for they cannot do without Scripture. Truth must be partly clipped, partly suppressed, or else not insisted on; charity will be invoked, and liberal tolerance, with promise of wider and speedy results,-the seed in this case needing no "long patience" on the part of the husbandman. From such attempts have arisen the religious confederacies of the day, assuming soon the large proportions which seem so triumphantly to justify them, but in all which the "dogma," the unyielding truth of God, tends to be thrown out or ignored, that men may keep company with one another.
For the truth, somehow,-the uncompromising truth-does seem to rouse men, and set them at variance. The jarring sects of Protestantism, have they not arisen from those "private interpretations" of an open Bible, which wiser Romanism has condemned in favor of what is strangely affirmed to be "catholic," even while it is plain that put it to the free, unconstrained votes of the "Christian world," catholic it could never be. Rome's word, however, is not compromise, but "authority." Protestantism too loves not the word compromise, but rather "tolerance":you must be liberal in divine things, you have no rights; for the word of God, too, claims authority, and of the highest kind, as is evident, if it be that. Scripture is not, in that sense, tolerant:as how could he be who could write, "If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" ? (i Cor. 14:37.)
Scripture therefore-spite of Sunday-schools and what not-tends with its sharp-edged teaching to be in a certain disrepute to-day. As men did with Him of whom it speaks, in His day, so now:they bow it out. With studied respect of manner, they seldom allow it to dictate to them where its voice is unsupported by some other authority, or where obedience will cost them much. Few there are, it is to be" feared, who are absolutely ready to receive and welcome all the truth of God ; for, there is really no other reason, and can be none, why all Christians are not of one mind to-day, than this, that they do not in heart desire at all costs to follow the truth. '' He that willeth to do God's will,"says the Lord Himself, "shall know of the doctrine" (John 7:17). How could it be otherwise, if God be what He is ? But then what does the confusion abroad in Christendom at the present time, tell of the condition of soul prevalent among the true people of God themselves !
For the most part, it is not strife about doctrines that is so characteristic, as indolence and indifference about them. Some, very active in eager evangelism, have given them up pretty much, as only hindering their work. If they pause to realize the meaning of this, they will have to own that God has made a mistake, or they have;-God's word is not in harmony with His work;-He from whose love | man the gospel has come, cannot have foreseen effect of His truth! And how many, on the other hand, have just received what has come down to them from their fathers without exercise of soul about it! without following the apostle's well-known rule, to '' prove all things, hold fast that which is good" !
As a consequence, many things carelessly received make Scripture, in all that is inconsistent with these really unintelligible; and this lies really as an accusation, though they would not openly formulate it, against Scripture itself. It cannot fail to be so. The searching it, produces but perplexity. They hold to it in general-give it up as to minor details :would be astonished, could they seriously examine it, how much of what they believe God has given to them has thus exhaled altogether;-how much is but as a dead thing-dead without any lamentation over it- not the living word of God at all.
And this affects even the most central truths,- truths about the Person of Christ, truths about His work. How many conflicting views about atonement prevail in the so-called orthodox denominations! What is the remedy? why, leave out the "views" then, say many:do not define. But suppose Scripture does? This will mean in that case, "don't go too deep into Scripture."And that is what is at the bottom; we should know surely whose voice it is that suggests this. It is one and the same voice that says to one person, " Be humble:don't imagine that your opinion is better than anybody else's"; and to an-other, "Be charitable:good men differ about these things"; and to another, "Don't contend " for this:you will make enemies, you will lose your friends "; and to another, "You are not learned:don't occupy yourself with what requires a theologian to decide about"; and to another, "The Church has settled this"; and-getting more and more the dragon's voice-"Oh, but surely there are mistakes in the Bible :you do not mean to contend for verbal inspiration ?" So the form of the argument varies; but the voice is that of the "liar from the beginning," him who "abode not in the truth"; and his aim is ever to discredit the truth. " Don't go too far." " Don't be too sure." "Don't be dogmatic." "Don't be uncharitable." The devil knows men well, and what is the chord in each that will be most responsive to his touch. He is a good chemist too, and can mix his poisons so that there shall be scarcely taste or smell of the principal ingredient:all the same it will do its work.
And amazing it is, the easy-going torpidity of Christians, that will allow their best blessings to be stolen under their eyes, and never discern it. In other matters they will be quite other men. "The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light"; but now, with a large number of Christians you shall find (and not insignificantly) in worldly matters all the wisdom of the world, and in the things that should be their own things as Christians, the most childish capacity. I may seem to be wandering from what is before me, in dwelling upon these things; but in fact I am fully keeping it in mind all through, and that it is "he that hath ears to hear" that will listen to it. And the Lord insists upon this in all His addresses to these Asiatic churches.
What is the meaning of this word to Philadelphia, "Thou hast not denied My Name" ? You have not, at any rate, denied it, my reader ? I trust not, indeed:but perhaps you think of this as mere gross apostasy, or as the lapse under pressure of such days of persecution as have been, when a little incense thrown upon an altar to some heathen god would save one's life by abjuring Christianity. Few are tempted that way now, and you have no need to look closely at it:is that so ? Yes, it may do, if we want to let ourselves off easily. But if Philadelphia in its deeper application just applies to such professedly Christian times as these, then it will seem surely strange that the not having done what few among us have any strong temptation at all to do, should be, in the Lord's eyes, a special commendation of Philadelphia! As to this also, we need not in that case lay much emphasis upon the warning, "hold fast that which thou hast"; and overcoming will not be in this application difficult; – or in another view of it we may say, perhaps, will scarcely be possible, when there is for the mass no difficulty to "overcome."
Have we possibly, then, misinterpreted it ?For one would say, rather, that there would be on the contrary some special and exceptional suitability in the commendation and warning both, which would infer some special liability, just on the part of Philadelphians, to this specific sin,-some special trial in this respect to which they would be exposed! Can that be true ?Does it seem unlikely ?In the gross form in which we may be disposed to take it, But is the gross form then the true interpretation can it be so, when it leads to such a result as almost evacuate meaning from it, as applied to Philadelphia ?
What is it, to deny His Name? What is "His Name " ? All names are significant in Scripture ; but the names of God and Christ, how specially, how transcendently significant! If God acts "for His Name's sake," that means, to declare what He is. If we are "gathered to Christ's Name"-which is the true form of the words (Matt, 18:20), "to," not "in,"-it is because what we realize Him to be draws us (each and all together) unto Him. " His Name '' is thus the revealed truth of what He is. He is away from earth ; and we have not Himself, visibly, to come to. But the truth of what He is, draws us together, and as so drawn, we confess what He is to us, and so coming have the promise of His (spiritual) presence. This is how we are united together, as a wheel is; by the circumference surely; but if that were all-if it were the main thing-the wheel would have no strength :its strength depends above all, upon the center; so our union is (in a way that transcends all that the figure can express) by the Center, which Christ is to all of us :and this, in proportion as it is true, defines and secures also the circumferential union-that to one another.
Carry this back to our subject:think of what Philadelphia stands for and expresses. If the gathering of Christians is in question in it, and it is to a true Christ (to the truth of what Christ is) they would be gathered, then what more central for the Philadelphian than not to deny this truth of what Christ is ? -this all-essential, all-sufficing Name !
Now another question-and let no one who values Christ treat it lightly:if there be a devil, the enemy of God and man, the constant and subtle opposer of all good, and with such knowledge as such a being may have, of what it is that he is opposing, how would he seek to corrupt and destroy such a movement as that of Philadelphia ? The answer is not in the least doubtful:he would attack it at that central point upon which all depended:he would attack the truth of Christ, His Person and work. As surely as that is true, so sure is it that a main test for the Philadelphian would be the confession or denial of the name of CHRIST, the Center of gathering.
Look at this all through, and see if I have strained the argument in any wise. See if any link in it is missing, or if any is insufficient. If it be not, let us take one most evident step further. These addresses are prophetical:this particular address therefore is a prophecy. There is implied here then, in connection with this movement to recover (on principle) the Church of God, that there would be an attack of Satan upon the Lord Jesus Christ as the Center of gathering. Has it been so ? Brethren who have knowledge of the history of the last fifty years in relation to this movement, I cite you all to bear witness as to this before God:have there been questions affecting the Person of Christ and the gathering to His Name ? I charge you, as you would listen to His word, to answer the question:has not history fulfilled this prophecy ? And how then does the prophecy affect our position, whatever it may be, with regard to our Lord's own commandment here:"Thou hast not denied My Name " ?
But again, let us remember that the great enemy of us all is one well versed in the ways of this terrible warfare. He has skill acquired in six thousand years' multiform experience. " He is a liar, and the father of it." The covert and the wile are his. Nothing is more common than to see him in the garb of sanctity; and he is familiar with the habit and the speech of love. He can appear as an angel of light, and his ministers be as the ministers of righteousness. He can be Satan, and denounce Satan; only putting Satan for God and God for Satan. Well may we look to our armor; well may we cleave to the word of God; well may we be "praying with all prayer"; well will it be, if in truth it can be said of us, that "we are not ignorant of his devices." All the world is on his side. The flesh, even in a Christian, pleads for him. Nor can we meet him with his own weapons, nor foil him by the adoption of his own tactics. In the encounter with him we have always to keep in mind what Proverbs says of the '' strange woman":"lest thou shouldst ponder the path of life, her ways are changeable, that thou shouldst not know them."
Let us fix this firm in our minds, that the Lord here, in commending Philadelphia for not denying His Name, assures us of what is the great danger in such controversies as have arisen. The great danger is lest the Philadelphia!! in his aim to have together the people of God should forget in some way the gathering Center, should link himself with the denial of the Name of Christ. We shall look at "links," if the Lord will, by and by; but let us already anticipate the apostle's warning words that one who "receives" or even "greets" the man who "brings not this doctrine" (of Christ) is "partaker of his evil deeds" (2 Jno. 10, ii); therefore that one who knowingly "greets " the denier of Christ's Name is "partaker" of that denial. The history-which here I do not give*-of the first attack of the enemy makes undeniably clear where it began. *It may be found in a " Statement for Examination," published by Loizeaux Brothers.* And as to those affected by it, it is just as clear where alone any suspicion even of such denial, or of greeting of the deniers, has attached. One body there was (of those divided at that time) which even those separated from, did not and could not charge with such denial, or with any compromising adherence to those denying. The same could never be said of the other side:there, if anywhere, (and the attack of the enemy is certain,) the danger-signals of the prophecy alone display themselves.
Satan here was certainly permitted to be the sifter of God's wheat, and he does well in that way what he takes in hand to do. Plenty of failure, no doubt, could be urged on both sides. Piety too could be urged on both. In a sieve things naturally get well mixed. So much the more important is it to stand clear upon the ground given by the prophecy, and see that while on the one side men were pleading for the Center, the other side was all the time thinking of the circumference. Both surely need to be maintained, and it is quite possible, of course, to err on all sides; yet he who holds fast to Christ will find that Christ is attractive power for His people; it is Christ whom the Spirit of God glorifies; it is here that government of heart and mind is found. It is only from the center that the circumference can be truly drawn. Philadelphia is neither praised nor blamed for her conduct in relation to the people of God, as we have seen:it is " My Word, My Name, My patience," that are spoken of:and to get His point of view is all-important.
If Christ be honored, the Spirit of God is free, truth finds its place in relation to Him, and there is progress:souls can be led on. All that will, can judge in the case in question. The Spirit of God cannot be mistaken in this, or turned aside into other channels than those connected with the Rock from which the water flows. And here is a distinct and precious evidence of Christ's approval. Apart from this, the stream grows sluggish and dries up. Souls may be blessed and ministered to, for God is gracious ; but the supply is elsewhere.
No one can, I think, deny these principles. If they are true, they will not mislead in honest application. Nor do I write a word for those who have no heart to make it.
6. THE QUESTION OF ASSOCIATION.
I turn aside for the present from the question of the doctrine of Christ, not as if there were no more to be said about it. There are counter charges and later developments which cannot be ignored; and I do not mean to ignore them. But already it will be seen that another matter has to be looked at in the light of Scripture, in order rightly to settle how far-reaching may be the guilt of the denial of Christ's Name. We have had in fact to refer just now to the question of association; but its importance demands a much closer examination, both to see how Scripture treats it, and that we may realize its moral significance also:this, of course, as Scripture puts it too. It is a question which is in such intimate relation to the whole character of things to-day as deeply to concern us all; and Scripture is distinctly against principles which are so inwrought into the whole texture of society to-day as to make it difficult to gain the attention of Christians for what is adverse to them Yet "the world passeth away; . . . and he that doeth the will of God abideth forever."
The association of man with man is a divine necessity. The institution of the family recognized it from the beginning. The difference of capacity in men brings them necessarily together, the lack in one being met by another's efficiency. Union means ministry of each to each; the need of it being a most helpful discipline, the supply of it an appeal to affection and gratitude. The Church of God is an organization in which this principle is fully owned; a union founded upon both difference and unity :a body which is built up by that which "every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part."
Sin which has come in is everywhere, however, that which transforms all good into evil:the greater the good, alas, the worse the evil. The union which obtains so largely to-day is mere confederacy; we may often call it indeed conspiracy. In it the individuality which God's union always provides for and maintains is interfered with, conscience is oppressed, evil is tolerated for supposed final good, morality is superseded by machinery. God's word as to it by Isaiah is :" Say. ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. But sanctify the Lord of hosts Himself, and let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread." (Isa. 8:12, 13.)
Whether it be fear or whether it be greed that inspires the motive, the true fear of God is surely the one remedy for it all. This fear is the effectual purgation of all union from the evil which, if it be admitted, soon dominates and controls it; or else it sets God's free man loose from this control. Walking with Him, we cannot hold out the hand to him who refuses His will as sovereign. The end must be His end, and the way to it His way. To seek to join with evil is only profanity.
Necessarily therefore our associations are of the greatest possible importance. They witness to the path on which (whatever our profession) we are ourselves walking. We can only " follow righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart." Scripture is full therefore of warnings and instructions upon this.
In the Church of God, where our relationship to one another is of His establishment, not of our own will, it is inevitable that the reconciliation of holiness in our ways with the eternal bond that unites us with one another should cause serious perplexity. The world in which the Church is, is its entire opposite, and the evil in it is ever appealing to the kindred evil in the saints themselves. Its hostility is not so much to be dreaded as its friendship :its peace is nothing else but covert war. Between its "prince" and our own not even truce is possible.
Already in the apostle's time the epistle which gives us the order of the Church of God shows us this threefold influence at work upon it. The wisdom of the world, the lust of the flesh, the power of Satan, were already invading the sacred inclosure; and the apostle has afresh to stake off its boundary-lines and to repel the intruder. The foundation doctrine of the resurrection was being denied, and bringing their whole profession of Christianity into question. If such things could come in so soon in Corinth, as it were in the very presence of an apostle, how can we expect better times and to be permitted to escape necessary warfare ? It is in his second epistle that he insists so earnestly that the yoke with unbelievers forfeits the enjoyment of the relationship to the Father as he would have us know it. We must come out from among them and be separate, and not touch the unclean thing, and then we have the assurance, "I will receive you, and be a Father to you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." The peril of evil association could scarcely be more emphatically affirmed.
But it has been said that this has only to do with unbelievers, and does not define our attitude toward the children of God. We shall have to look therefore at texts which speak of these. But before doing so, I would pause to deal with an argument which connects itself with such an objection.
It is urged that we must have direct Scripture, and not. inference, to guide us in all these matters.
Now Scripture gives us principles, and not a perfect code of divine law; and it necessitates inference at every step. Inference is inseparable from a rational life; and God Himself condescends to "reason" with His creatures. "Come, and let us reason together, saith the Lord." The argument against reason in the things of God has been carried to lengths which are as unscriptural as they are irrational. Where does Scripture decry any God-given faculty that man has ? Nowhere. In speaking against what God has given, we speak, necessarily, against the Giver. Revelation everywhere honor; God as the Creator by honoring His creation.
Sin has come in and perverted every faculty; but the work of God here is to purify and not destroy. When the soul begins to realize its relation to God reason becomes most reasonable in accepting its creature-limit; and rationality pervades the life anc character of the new man in CHRIST. One might a; well say that if we have light, eyes become no mat ter, as decry reason in the things of God. It is only in the light that eyes are of use.
But moreover, God tests us by this very exercise of reason,-holds us responsible to have our eye:open, and to use them honestly. This "exercise' the apostle speaks of as being what lie found necessary, in order to have "a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man" (Acts 24:16). Exercise shows the man morally and spiritually awake and by it he is kept in health and vigor. God there fore insists upon the necessity of this, and acts with a view to its being maintained. Scripture is so writ ten "that the man of God may be perfect";-not all the world, and not the drowsy and sleep-loving among Christians.
Now let us apply these things to the apostle's words to the Corinthians, and we shall see that this refusal of such texts as having to do with fellowship among Christians is at bottom unspiritual and im-moral. Does the principle involved in the question "what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness ? and what communion hath light with darkness ? " apply only to a yoke with unbelievers Suppose we are all believers, may we accept a yoke with a believer, which implies that such communion is possible ?
God is the same in His holiness, and in the requirements of His holiness, for one as for another, for saint and sinner alike:only that the sin of the saint is worse than that of the sinner, in proportion to the difference of light, and the grace which he has received. Thus then the unequal yoke may apply fully to a yoke between Christians, if one of these be allowing in himself the " unrighteousness " which cannot be gone on with in the unbeliever.
Because men will not "infer," that in no wise hinders the just judgment of God as to the matter. The consequences of our acts will as surely follow as if we swallowed poison in the belief that it was wholesome food. How many have in fact found the disastrous effects of alliances, whether social, commercial, or religious, which they have permitted themselves to contract under the pacifying illusion that they were lawful because on both sides Christian ! How many, so deluded, have waked up to find that after all, the question in the prophet was a much deeper one than they had thought:"Can two walk together, except they be agreed ?"
In what various ways these principles affect our life is easily apparent. Wives go with their husbands in that which they believe wrong before God, because the scripture, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord," is sup-posed to release them from all moral responsibility. " Children, obey your parents in all things," is similarly quoted to reverse the moral nature of things, and set the earthly tie above the divine one. We are told too, that we have no Scripture warrant for judging assemblies, when, if it be true, the sins of these are not to be accounted and treated as sin elsewhere is. All these are the fruits of an immoral principle, as should be plain. And how can those who advocate and practice such things escape the woe of the prophet upon "them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light and light for darkness ; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter " ? (Isa. 5:20.) The eternal principles of God's government are against them; and the immutable holiness of the divine nature.
To return, however, to the Scripture-teaching as to association.
The second epistle to Timothy gives us the last word of the apostle Paul, when the Church was already far gone in declension. There is no more talk of the Church as the "house of God," as in the first epistle. Though it was, no doubt, still that, he compares it rather, on the one side, to a "great house," with its vessels even for dishonorable uses; on the other, as it would seem, and in perfect moral congruity, to a house in ruins, of which still, however, the foundation stands. Notice the inscription on the foundation-stone:"Nevertheless, the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His." Precious assurance! but what does it indicate ? What but that the Church was lapsing really into " invisibility," save to the Eye of Him who can never fail to remember every one who in whatever feebleness has committed himself to Him for his salvation. But on the other side, what is the inscription ? Just when all the difficulties of the path are being fully apparent,-just when evil might seem to have prevailed, and some laxity to be almost unavoidable,-the clue-line for the path through all the tangle is found in this direction, simple as can be, straight as the undefiled ray of light, stable as the glorious throne of God:"And, let him that nameth the name of the Lord depart from iniquity."
Yes, thank God! here is the clue-line:here alone is absolute safety assured us. Let a man keep fast hold of this,-let him commit himself to it unhesitatingly, no matter what the question he is called to decide, individual, social, religious,-no matter what the issue may be,-no matter what may threaten him,-he may find his path through a desert-solitude, up over the most rugged mountain, down in the valley of death-shade, yet " the path of the just shall be as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day." Yes, because the light of heaven is upon it.
Notice how the sacred Name that we have been thinking of is here:if one but name "the Name of the Lord "-so the editors read it,-the Name of Him to whom, in the face of man, he is to be subject- then he must depart from iniquity (unrighteousness). But what is unrighteousness ? What is righteousness ? Ah, you can only measure this aright as you think of the place in which the blood of CHRIST has put you,-of the grace that has been shown you, and which you are to show,-of the blessed path in which you are called to follow Him:here assuredly, simple as is the principle, you will find its working out to be enough to give you plenty of exercise from day to day.
But let us go on with the apostle:
'' But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and of earth; and some to honor and some to dishonor. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. Flee also youthful lusts; but follow righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart."
This shows us the disorder, and the rule in a time of disorder, both with regard to separation from the evil, and with regard to association with what is good. "Those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart" are clearly the same as those who "naming the name of the Lord, depart from unrighteousness"; and thus the man who purges himself from vessels to dishonor, finds his own class. But a question here arises, which I think has not been sufficiently considered :are the vessels to honor and the vessels to dishonor the only two classes here ? If it be only those who purge themselves from the latter who belong to the former, then it is certain that all unpurged must be classed as vessels to dishonor, or there must be a third class, simply left aside, as not meet for the Master's use :a solemn condition in either aspect!
If it be asked, Are we to apply this to fellowship in the assembly ? there is manifestly no exception. The following of "faith, love, peace," with those purged from evil associations, implies that the un-purged cannot be in the assembly. If these are unfit for the Master's use, they cannot have their place there where each and all are plainly to be used by Him. The members of the body are by the fact of being such in responsibility to edify one another. If they are unfit for this, what disqualifies them for the one thing, disqualifies them for the other. If they cannot call on the Lord out of a pure heart, in what way can they call upon him ? The assembly, if of one mind with the Lord, has to affirm His judgment. The principle is again exemplified here :"What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness ?" The form of statement of it, put thus as a question, implies the clearness and positiveness of the answer. Every one's conscience, if it be right itself, is expected to respond.
Fellowship must be really such. It is the voice of the "Holy and the True" that is heard here. Let evil be sanctioned by one or many, fellowship with CHRIST must cease. We cannot walk with God, and go on with sin.
Thus Corinth with the incestuous person in the, midst, was leavened by their guilty allowance of it:they had to purge the leaven out by self-judgment and separation from the evil, that they might be a " new lump." They were not, in their then condition, a new lump. The leaven then was in the lump, not in the individual merely. In CHRIST they were unleavened; and they must represent in their practical condition what grace had made them positionally to be.
This is a well-worn topic ; and yet it needs still to be insisted on:for people still venture to say that, despite the allowance of evil in their midst, Corinth was yet unleavened. And if it were not, some add, it would be too late to purge out the leaven. The last assertion carries the figure far indeed, and denies the power of divine grace for every condition that can be found among the people of God. Yet it is true that there seems to have been something exceptional in the state of things at Corinth, which can be pleaded for no other assembly since. It may have been the fact that as to them they did not as yet clearly know what to do,-that as yet such a case had not been provided for. But they might have mourned over it before God, that "he that had done this deed might be taken away from " them. He gives them the command now as to it, that none might be able to say they had not this any more.
They were to put away from among themselves that wicked person. Some object to saying "from the Lord's table." In fact, it goes further, to say, "from among yourselves." To put away from the table simply, might for the careless be perfectly consistent with treating the person so dealt with as, after all, one of themselves in other respects. The apostle shows how much further it "is to go, by adding, "with such an one, no, not to eat." There was to be a refusal of all association, such as even at an ordinary meal.
A leavened lump means something that in every part of it is capable of communicating leaven. That is, in fact, the idea in "old leaven:" it means a piece of the old lump which could be introduced into the new for that purpose. It shows us that every one who sanctions the retention of evil is really a "partaker" of the evil. He practically denies the holiness of God, and cannot therefore himself be holy. It is not any physical contact, of course, that has wrought in this case. It is a corrupt and corrupting principle, that would associate the name of CHRIST with His dishonor, and in that sense deny His Name. Thus the Philadelphia!! is reminded that He is "the Holy and the True." But holiness is lost in communion with evil.
Purging out the evil means separation from it. Here it is the assembly acting. In Timothy, he that will be a vessel unto honor must purge himself from the vessels to dishonor :that is, he must at all costs separate himself. If the assembly stand in the way of this, then,-to keep a good conscience, he must separate from the assembly. In this, then, there is the judgment of an assembly, which some deny to be scriptural. And in this case, if we take part with him who has rightly separated himself, we, too, must separate ourselves ; and thus judge the assembly. And if we do not take part with him, we are not with God.
We are forced, then, to judge; and to judge every individual in this leavened lump :to go with those who deny the holiness of God, is to be ourselves unholy; to deny the Name of CHRIST as the Holy and the True, is to cease to be Philadelphian.
7. "A CIRCLE OF FELLOWSHIP," OR INDEPENDENCY?
Another question must now be considered, which unites itself to that which we have been just considering. We shall find that "independency " is one of the most successful means of evasion of scriptural discipline that could perhaps be imagined,-one of the most successful snares by which the children of God can be seduced into resistance to the will of God, while to themselves they seem to be standing only for the principles of the Word, against "confederacy," for purity, and unsectarian maintenance of the Body of CHRIST. We must therefore look seriously and with sufficient care into the matter ; first, at what independency really is, and then at the fruits which make manifest the tree.
In its simplest and boldest form independency appears as the denial of any scriptural authority for any "circle of fellowship " outside of the individual gathering, wherever it may be ; and this denial is made in the interests, as they imagine, of unsectarian recognition of the one Church only, which is the body of CHRIST. The formation and maintenance of any such circle is, they maintain, sectarian, and the adoption by such circle of a common discipline is sectarianism full-blown. It constitutes the whole a '' party," which may take the name of CHRIST, as some at Corinth did, and only be perhaps on that account to be the more avoided, as making that precious Name an instrument of division.
This charge is not, it may be, that of denying the Name of CHRIST, but it approaches it so nearly as to make it of the most serious consequence. Those who hold to a circle of fellowship and yet refuse the adoption of a sectarian name, with what is implied in this, can neither afford to give up their claim of gathering simply to the Name of CHRIST, nor accept the truth of what is charged against them. Let us examine then what is meant by these assertions, neither shaken from our convictions by their boldness, nor refusing to bring all these to the test of Scripture, as often as may be needful. That which is true will only gain in its hold on us by every fresh examination, and the only danger is in this being lightly and not thoroughly carried out. We should be thankful for any suggestions that awaken fresh inquiry.
Now what is a "circle of fellowship"?That all such is not forbidden must be believed by the objector himself, if he have but '' two or three " gathered with himself in any local assembly. For this, I suppose, is not the whole "assembly of God" there, but something indefinitely less than this. Yet, here there must be a within and without, a being, in some sense, of us or not of us,-a something which is saved from being a party, not by having no walls or door, but by its having no arbitrary, no merely human, terms of admission. If it have no terms, then it is a mere rabble of lawless men, and as such to be refused by every Christian.
If you say, "No, it is Scripture to which we are subject," that brings in at once the implication that it is Scripture as you see it, not as your fellow-Christians see it; and you take your place as before the Lord, to be judged of Him in regard to this. Your being a separate somewhat, a "circle of fellowship," does not constitute you a party:you own Christians everywhere, as members of the body of Christ, and receive them wherever a scriptural hindrance to their reception does not exist, and you speak of being gathered simply to Christ's Name, without an idea that you are making the Name of Christ a badge, or sign, or instrument, of division.
Well, then, in this place, at least, there exists a gathering of Christians that I can recognize,-I suppose, ought to recognize,-apart from the whole body of Christians in the place. I say, "ought," because I have duties in regard to the assembling of ourselves together; and here alone I find those with whom I can assemble, no unscriptural condition being imposed on me. Were there another assembly in the same place and of the same character, then I should have to ask why they were not together:for the sin of schism is a grave one in Scripture, and I should have of necessity to refuse this.
If, then, in this place, I repeat, there is a gathering that I can own, and must,-suppose, now, I went elsewhere and lived-found perhaps there also one that I had equally to own as gathered to Christ's Name alone, would it be right for me in the new place to refuse to own as a separate company, those in that from which I came, whom, when I was there, I had to own, and whom, if I were now there, I should have to own. Is it possible that my going from New York to Boston should make that wrong for me at Boston which at New York would be quite right, and if I went back there, would be right again? If so, that is independency in earnest; or else it is the most curious shifting of right and wrong that one can conceive of; morality shifting every few miles of the road, whichever way I travel. And yet, if not, we are connected in principle, to a "circle of fellowship "!
The recognition of each other by such gatherings throughout the world is, therefore, right; and everything opposed to it is false and wrong. Nay, it is impossible to maintain practically, if principles are of any value to us. For, were I taking the journey spoken of, must I not inquire for those who are of one mind with us in Boston ? and would those in Boston expect anything else of me ? To refuse a circle of fellowship may be held as a theory:the facts will always be discordant with the theory. The theory itself cannot be truthfully accepted by any one who has given it any sober reflection ; except it mean independency of the grossest and narrowest kind; that is, associating where one will, and recognizing obligations nowhere but where I will. And this would be indeed the most perfect sectarianism that could well exist.
But we are to recognize the whole body of Christ! Surely, but not their unscriptural associations. In the interests of the body of Christ I refuse denominations; but in the same interests I am bound to accept the circle of unsectarian fellowship. The gracious words which, providing for a day of failure and confusion, sanction the two or three gathered to the Lord's blessed Name, sanction such gatherings in every place, and therefore a circle of such gatherings. It would be as sectarian to refuse identification with these as to take our place with the various denominations. Nay, it would be more so. Nor would it save us from this, to say we were acting for the good of the whole Church of God, when from Scripture itself the disproof is so easy.
Now, another step.
To accept these is to accept their discipline. For the Lord's sanction of the gathering is the express sanction of their discipline. Of course, I do not mean by that they can add to Scripture, or invent a character of discipline that is not found there ; nor yet that He could sanction what might be a mistaken judgment. He is the Holy and the True, the Lord and Master of His people always:and that is quite enough to say as to all this. But authority for discipline these "two or three" have; and woe to him who resists its rightful exercise :"If he hear not the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen man and a publican " is said of just such feeble gatherings as these.
It is plain that precisely the same thing is to be said for the discipline as for the gathering itself:if it is to be respected at A where it is exercised, it is just as much to be respected at B or at C. If it be the decision of a local matter, then the Lord has plainly put it into the hands of those who are in circumstances to judge of it aright, though protest and appeal are surely to be listened to, and they are bound to satisfy consciences where honestly exercised about it.
As to a question of truth, as such it affects all consciences ; it can be put before all:no local gathering has authority in any such matter; it would be making a creed to be subscribed. The truth as to CHRIST is a deeper and more vital matter, for we are gathered to His Name. Where truth of this kind is subverted the gathering exists no more, except as an instrument in the enemy's hand, and is to be refused, with all who take part with it.
If on the other hand, the question be of facts, then those who have them are bound (if these affect more than the local gathering) to make them known to their brethren; and here a circular letter may rightly have its place, not to establish a rule or principle of action, but as a witness:which of course is open to question, as all facts are, if there be contrary evidence, or that given be insufficient. No circular has authority in itself:it is purely a question of facts and of the credibility of the testimony.
With these limitations, which are the results of the frailty and fallibility which are common to us all, we have necessarily to own a circle of fellowship and the discipline connected with it, if we would be free from the charge of real independency.
And real independency is not of God, but always and everywhere acts against Him. It is to make the members of the same body say to each other, "we have no need of you," and to deny the unity of the Spirit which should pervade the body. The more we lament and refuse the sectarianism which exists, the more are we compelled, and shall rejoice to own the body of CHRIST wherever possible. And this circle of fellowship, while it is not the "body," furnishes us with the means of owning this in a truthful and holy way, so far as the state of ruin in which the Church exists permits it to be done. With love to all CHRIST's own,-with an open door for the reception of all according to the conditions of truth and holiness,- such a circle is not sectarian, but a protest against it, while the meeting that refuses connection with it is sectarian in fullest reality.
And this is what is meant by the ''ground" of the one body. It is as different as possible from any claim to be the one body, and does not in the least imply any sectarian conditions of intelligence in order to communion. The maintenance of a common discipline is in no wise sectarian, but part (and an essential part) of that communion itself:absolutely necessary if the holiness of God be the same thing wherever it is found, and not a thing for the "two or three " anywhere to trifle with as they list.
Independency, in setting aside the practical unity of the Church of God, sets aside a main guard of holiness itself. It makes this no object of common care; it does not seek common exercise about it. It releases from the sense of responsibility as to the house of God:it is my own house I am to keep clean after my own fashion. And this real laxity as to the people of God at large (but which is so consoling to an unexercised conscience, that it is the great charm undoubtedly to multitudes to-day) naturally has the effect of lowering one's estimate of holiness altogether, and so prevents my own house being kept really clean.
Where, however, a circle of fellowship is in fact maintained, along with and spite of the protest against it, or where there is not the maintenance of a common discipline-where perhaps as the natural fruit of independency also, the unholy principle is contended for that an assembly cannot be judged for that which would compel the judgment of an individual, there, as is natural to expect, any local discipline almost can be evaded by a little dexterity. If the gathering at B will not receive you from A, it will from C, and C will receive you from A. No one is safe anywhere from the violation of a discipline which he himself recognizes as a scriptural one. Any particular person, if he be not too prominent, becomes lost to the eye amid the maze of bewildering differences. He who has conscience, and would fain be clear, has soon to resign himself to a general hope that what looks so like confusion will in the end conserve the interests of holiness; or in despair, to wash his hands of what he cannot avoid.
Yet it is an ensnaring system; for in this way pessimism and optimism both can find apology for it, and go on with it. One gets free of an amazing amount of trouble; and while not seeming to have given up all ecclesiastical ties, as many have, yet be practically as free as they for the gospel and from the wearying responsibility of being one's brother's keeper. Why should we be ? when we only get our trouble for our pains, find a narrow path instead of the broad, open one, which is so pleasant to all of us, and for this have only to shut our eyes at the proper time, and ignore what it seems we cannot help.
And in fact the countless small breaches of independency make less show than the terrible rents which we are exposed to otherwise. Why not let this sad-faced Merarite go, with his pins and cords of the tabernacle always getting into entanglement, and be content with Kohath and with Gershom?
Still, if the tabernacle of the lord is to be set up in the wilderness, how shall we do without the pins and cords ?
In result it will be found that it is the truth of God which suffers, and tends to pass away and be lost. What wonder when we begin with choosing what we will have of it, and what we will discard ? Fellowship becomes a thing of most uncertain quality :and what wonder, if obedience to the Word have anything to do with fellowship ? , Worship is largely displaced in behalf of service :for we have lost the necessary pins and cords. We may go on with the help of what truth we can still borrow and find room for; but the truth tends somehow continually to slip away from us ; and in the jangle of many utterances, it is ever getting to be of less account.
One's voice may be little heard in a day like this ; but I would do what I can to press upon the people of the Lord first of all their Master's claim. I press that this independency, little as one may imagine it, little as many may care to entertain it even as a question, means ultimately shipwreck to the truth of Christ, because it means independency of Him. One may find in it plenty of associates, for it makes little demands upon one and gives the kind of liberty which is so coveted to-day. The authority of Christ is not in it. It may support itself by the help of other names-names in repute as Christians too- and be in honor. It cannot have the commendation which Philadelphia, spite of its "little power," finds from her gracious Lord:-
"THOU HAST KEPT MY WORD, AND NOT DENIED MY NAME." F. W. G.
(To be continued)